Cleave on an AoO?

[starwed]

Regardless, yes, you get a cleave on an AoO if you drop the target who provoked.

Why are you acting as if the invisible rogues example makes more sense than the invisible lemmings example? I understand what the RAW are, I simply don't think it makes sense.

 

[Graf]

Um, if anyone tried the invisible 'dire lemmings', they should be slapped, just like with the 'bag 'o rats'. Just thinking of someone trying that scenario is assinine.

And yet... by RAW it works fine.
The free attacks don't make much sense.
The example just illustrates the point (and demonstrates it's absurdity by taking it to the extreme).

Generally if you feel like "I'd just never let that happen in my game" you're avoiding the issue.

 

[The_Ditto]

The pixie rogue strikes a Kraken with a sap ...
.. and KOs the kraken ... (ie sneak + subdual, knocks it out ...)

That really doesn't make much sense either .. and yet the rules support it ..

What's the point in coming up with "extreme" situations to "prove the point" ...
Personally - I don't think it proves a thing.

Invisible dire lemmings? Yeah, sure ... whatever.

Is there an "issue" with Cleave + AoO ..
Probably ... as I'm sure there are "issues" with a lot of things ... it's an abstract system guys ... abstract ... meaning "not realistic".

Ok, if you want to fudge it so it's "more realistic" for yourself .. knock yourself out.

I might worry about it if I ever meet someone silly enough to try pulling these crazy tricks in a game I'm running ...


Been playing every week since 3.0, strung out across 4 different play groups, + Gen Con Indy and never hit any of these situations ... (not saying they don't happen - just that I've never had an issue with them).

Cheers!

 

[Graf]

The trick is that it's actually impossible for a pixie rogue to knock out a kraken unless the pixie has epic levels of rogue.
(at which point you expect characters to be doing improbably well in their field)

The cleave AoO is abusable, availible to players of all levels and doesn't make sense.

 

[werk]

I understand what the RAW are, I simply don't think it makes sense.

This is a fantasy roleplaying mechanic, not a reality simulator.

Reality is far to complex to model.

 

[The_Ditto]

The trick is that it's actually impossible for a pixie rogue to knock out a kraken unless the pixie has epic levels of rogue.

No it's not ... it's just pretty much impossible to do in one shot ... (which I never claimed ...)

 

[Jhulae]

Why are you acting as if the invisible rogues example makes more sense than the invisible lemmings example? I understand what the RAW are, I simply don't think it makes sense.

Because, it doesn't matter what the *target* of the cleave is doing. If the targets were visible, would that make a whole lot more sense for the guy getting smacked?

"Oh! Now I see how he's able to whack me all the time." Um, yeah. The target of the cleave is still getting attacked because the Great Cleaver is dropping a weak target, earning the cleave on the guy standing there.

Whether the opponents are visible or not makes no difference.

The argument about whether the dropped foes are visible or not is honestly spurious.

 

[FireLance]

Because, it doesn't matter what the *target* of the cleave is doing. If the targets were visible, would that make a whole lot more sense for the guy getting smacked?

"Oh! Now I see how he's able to whack me all the time." Um, yeah. The target of the cleave is still getting attacked because the Great Cleaver is dropping a weak target, earning the cleave on the guy standing there.

Whether the opponents are visible or not makes no difference.

The argument about whether the dropped foes are visible or not is honestly spurious.

A bit of historical context. One of the arguments in one of the old "Cleave on AOO" threads was that the weak opponents that attracted the AOOs somehow "distracted" that opponent by dying, thus effectively enabling the Great Cleaver with Combat Reflexes to get multiple AOOs on the stronger opponent without that stronger opponent doing anything to provoke them. The invisible (and, in at least one even more extreme example, silenced) opponents were introduced to point out that by the rules, the stronger opponent could be completely unaware that Great Cleaver with Combat Reflexes had killed anything, and could in fact be completely undistracted by anything, and the Great Cleaver with Combat Reflexes would still get all the extra attacks against him.

Besides, I happen to like the imagery of invisible dire lemmings.

 

[castro3nw]

Seems to me, the whole point of cleave is that you've downed somebody and your <insert weapon here> was swung hard enough to go clear through and catch someone else on the backswing...

I could be wrong, but I don't see the big difference in chopping through someone on the backswing of a normal attack or an AoO. No one was less ready for it, they were just standing in your backswing.

 

[Li Shenron]

AoOs are introduced with the explanation that they have something to do with the target dropping his defenses, since they are provoked by the target.

Although maybe there are some special abilities in various book that allows the attacker to "force" the target to provoke an AoO, normally AoOs can only be provoked.

In fact, the reason why AoOs were added to rules in the first place was to limit certain actions (casting spells from adjacent, using bows in melee, running away, moving too much around the enemies, performing a special attack like sunder/trip/disarm) without outright banning them from the game, which would have felt arbitrary.

The designers gave characters a choice: do the restricted action but take an AoO on yourself, or work to circumvent the restriction.

Cleave is perhaps the only example in the core rules which breaks the idea that characters are responsible for the AoOs they get.

This is why many gamers including me hate it.