Cleave on an AoO?

[Hypersmurf]

But again, its not that I think Great Cleave is too powerful, just that it seems very cheap for what you get.

Cleave is a fantastic feat. Comes up all the time.

Let's say I'm fighting three monsters which require, on average, three hits to put down. I get two attacks per round - let's say they almost always hit.

In round 1, I hit monster 1 twice.
In round 2, I hit monster 1 a third time, and he goes down - Cleave into monster 2! And then I get my second attack for the round, on monster 2.
In round 3, I hit monster 2 a third time, and he goes down - Cleave into monster 3!

Some levels later, I now have Great Cleave. And once again, I find myself fighting three monsters which require, on average, three hits to put down. I get two attacks per round - let's say they almost always hit.

In round 1, I hit monster 1 twice.
In round 2, I hit monster 1 a third time, and he goes down - Cleave into monster 2! And then I get my second attack for the round, on monster 2.
In round 3, I hit monster 2 a third time, and he goes down - Cleave into monster 3!

The Cleave feat came up twice! Great Cleave didn't come up at all.

Cleave is almost always useful, because at some point in a fight, you'll drop a monster. Even if it takes twenty rounds to do it.

Great Cleave is only useful if you're fighting creatures you can drop in a single round. And while it happens, the CR system tends to mean that it doesn't happen often.

When the circumstances are right, Great Cleave can be awe-inspiring. They just aren't right very often... and it usually means that an easy fight is over sooner, rather than tipping the balance between life and death for the PCs.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

When the circumstances are right, Great Cleave can be awe-inspiring.

When a PC has it, I throw him a bone once in a while; bunches of closely spaced low-level mooks. Of course, all of the other players like it too (fireball and flame strike anyone?).

 

[phindar]

I was watching my Clone Wars DVD for no good reason earlier today, and saw the ep with Mace Windu fighting the ginormous Grav-Tank. There's a good scene where he loses his light saber admist a bunch of robots and just starts force-wiping them all over the place. When you get to a certain level, against the mooks, that's what Great Cleave should look like. (Yeah, Sauron had a nice Cleave too.) Cleaves are one tangible area where you can do something in 3e that really wasn't possible in earlier editions (except for when I started playing OD&D, we would take extra damage left over after killing an enemy and apply it to the next enemy on the field, a sort of proto-cleave. The Ur-Cleave.)

If I opened the book tomorrow and some great Twilight Zone/time travel twist had occurred in which I had gone back into the past and killed Leonardo Da Vinci and came back to my own time and the only change was the entry under Great Cleave said prereq BAB +8, I'd think, "It's still an awesome feat." Thats kind of what I mean by its cheap.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Cleaves are one tangible area where you can do something in 3e that really wasn't possible in earlier editions (except for when I started playing OD&D, we would take extra damage left over after killing an enemy and apply it to the next enemy on the field, a sort of proto-cleave. The Ur-Cleave.)

In 1E, a high level fighter might get 3 attacks per 2 rounds, or even 2 attacks per round...

... except when fighting creatures with less than 1 HD (kobolds, say), against whom he could make 1 attack per level per round.

-Hyp.

 

[green slime]

In 1E, a high level fighter might get 3 attacks per 2 rounds, or even 2 attacks per round...

... except when fighting creatures with less than 1 HD (kobolds, say), against whom he could make 1 attack per level per round.

-Hyp.

Yes, the good old "sweep".

I still remember those enormous hordes of pitiful kobolds that were included as a random encounter in that first golden box game... Pools of Radiance, was it?

 

[Jhulae]

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.

But wait. The fact is that, with cleave, no matter how 'careful' Target A is (even avoiding AoOs and such), Target A can get cleaved whether or not whether the Cleaver is making a 'normal' attack or attacking on an AoO, as long as Target A is within cleave range when the Cleaver drops someone.

Regardless of whether it's on an AoO or a regular turn, a cleave is going to happen regardless of whether the Cleavee wants it to happen or has been 'super careful' or whatnot.

So, what's the big deal as to whether it happens on an AoO or regular attack? I'm confused by this point.

And honestly, how do you even *know* that something has cleave or great cleave until it uses it anyway?

Theoretically, if you were facing an opponent and the party Wizard summons 3 wimpy things to help attack it, when the opponent attacks and kills each summon, gaining a cleave on you, how is that any different as to whether it does the same during an AoO?

 

[FireLance]

But wait. The fact is that, with cleave, no matter how 'careful' Target A is (even avoiding AoOs and such), Target A can get cleaved whether or not whether the Cleaver is making a 'normal' attack or attacking on an AoO, as long as Target A is within cleave range when the Cleaver drops someone.

Regardless of whether it's on an AoO or a regular turn, a cleave is going to happen regardless of whether the Cleavee wants it to happen or has been 'super careful' or whatnot.

So, what's the big deal as to whether it happens on an AoO or regular attack? I'm confused by this point.

Let's consider two 4th-level fighters, A and C. For a start, assume C has Cleave.

Situation 1
In a normal round of combat, A gets one attack roll against C and C gets one attack roll against A. If A doesn't do anything to provoke an AOO, that one attack roll against A is all that C gets in one round of combat.

Now, we introduce a weak opponent B, who is an ally of A fighting against C.

Situation 2
If C attacks B, drops him and Cleaves into A, C still only gets one attack roll against A in that round. C's Cleave feat effectively allowed him to attack both A and B, but C still doesn't get more than one attack roll against A in a round of combat.

Situation 3
Now, let's say that instead of attacking B, C attacked A instead. On B's turn, he does something that provokes an AOO from C (disarm, sunder, whatever). C takes his AOO against B, and by the rules, he is allowed to Cleave into A. Now, C has made two attack rolls against A in a single round of combat (one regular attack, and one Cleave off an AOO). A is worse off under this scenario than when he was fighting C alone (Situation 1 - one normal attack) or when C Cleaved A on his turn (Situation 2 - one Cleave off a normal attack).

Some people are OK with this. They feel that it is "right" that A is made to "pay" for B's mistake, or that B's death "distracted" A and made him drop his defences, effectively subjecting him to an AOO even though he did nothing to provoke one.

Situation 4
This example is slightly more extreme. Assume that C also has Dexterity 18, Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave. In addition to B, A has four other weak allies: B1, B2, B3, and B4, who also provoke AOOs from C. For every person that C drops with an AOO, he can make an additional attack roll against A with Great Cleave. C could potentially make six attack rolls against A in one round of combat.

Of course, you can choose to see this as a feature. C needs high ability scores, four feats (including the prerequisites) and DM approval (or incompetence) to pull this off. However, I choose to see this as a bug because it seems to me that disadvantage suffered by A is out of proportion to the mistakes made by his allies.

Theoretically, if you were facing an opponent and the party Wizard summons 3 wimpy things to help attack it, when the opponent attacks and kills each summon, gaining a cleave on you, how is that any different as to whether it does the same during an AoO?

If the 3 wimpy things weren't there, the opponent could have attacked me three times in the round (Situation 1). If the opponent attacked the 3 wimpy things on his turn and Cleaved into me, I still got attacked no more than three times (Situation 2). I'm no worse off than Situation 1. If the opponent attacked me three times on his turn, and the 3 wimpy things did something to provoke AOOs from the opponent, and the opponent Cleaved into me three more times (Situation 3/4), I would have been attacked a total of six times in the round, as if I had provoked three AOOs from the opponent. If I actually had done nothing in the round to provoke any AOOs, I think I would be rather upset.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Some people are OK with this. They feel that it is "right" that A is made to "pay" for B's mistake, or that B's death "distracted" A and made him drop his defences, effectively subjecting him to an AOO even though he did nothing to provoke one.

I'm not sure where 'right' or 'OK' come into it; my position is not that it's 'right' or 'OK' that A is subject to an immediate, extra melee attack with the same weapon that dealt B enough damage to make him drop; my position is that the Cleave feat states that A is subject to an immediate, extra melee attack with the same weapon that dealt B enough damage to make him drop.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

I'm not sure where 'right' or 'OK' come into it;

From the few shrivelled remnants of "sim" perspective that my overwhelmingly gamist approach to D&D still has yet to overcome.

 

[hong]

I'm not sure where 'right' or 'OK' come into it; my position is not that it's 'right' or 'OK' that A is subject to an immediate, extra melee attack with the same weapon that dealt B enough damage to make him drop; my position is that the Cleave feat states that A is subject to an immediate, extra melee attack with the same weapon that dealt B enough damage to make him drop.

-Hyp.

Firelance is making a normative, not a positive statement, silly Smurf!