Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Storyteller01 said:
And the logical patch is to disallow AoO + Cleave. If you believe there is a problem.
Last edited:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Cleaving after an AoO
- Thread starter Vlos
- Start date
And the logical patch is to disallow AoO + Cleave. If you believe there is a problem.
Abraxas
Explorer
From the description of Great Cleave . . .
"Benefit: This feat works like Cleave, except that there is no limit to the number of times you can use it per round."
No, it explains why AoOs might occur that could result in multiple AoO/Cleave combos - not just by the caster's fighter ally but by the BBEG.
Thats not the point - the summoned creatures aren't under the caster's complete control unless he can communicate with them in some way - and creatures with animal intelligence aren't going to avoid AoOs.
Not if your summoning multiple weak creatures that are going to die in one hit regardless, and need a 20 to even hit the BBEG - seems like a pretty good use of a low level spell slot.
Unless they are intelligent the summoned creatures may never even get into a position to provide a flanking bonus. It is OK to sacrifice them in an attempt to get into a flanking position, but its not OK to sacrifice them to provide your great cleaving fighter ally more attacks at the BBEG at his full attack bonus (which has a better chance to hit than iterative attacks with a flanking bonus)? How I sacrifice them should be my choice as the caster. If you think them dying in combat is a bad thing don't summon them for combat - but that seems to be the express purpose of the summoning spells, considering they immediately attack your enemies even if you can't communicate with them.
The intent of the caster is to stop the BBEG with the resources at hand.
Never said they were. Disagreement with the AoO/Cleave routine has nothing to do with fair.
So remember to have your wizard summon a bunch of 1 hit die mooks to run past your fighter (who has Combat Reflexes and Great Cleave) so he gets the most (and smartest) use out of those feats.
As Ridley's Cohort said, disallowing AoO/Cleave is a reasonable patch to this loophole for those of us that find AoO/Cleaves unreasonable.
Its a heck of a lot more reasonable than disallowing Improved Crit and Keen to stack.
YMMV
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
KarinsDad said:
Which would kinda defeat the purpose of my demonstration of showing that each rule can be set up in a way that it looks overpowered, underpowered or broken, huh, if I only use "real broken" ones, especially as a "broken rule" still is a matter of interpretation, at least in my eyes, as every rule is applied by people with different points of view to different gaming styles.
This whole discussion is actually a pretty neat example of it, because you're constructing a situation that shows that a rule a lot of others don't interpret as broken at all can be exploitet with the help of a Summon Monster spell and the slightly loose definition of who may be victim to an Attack of Opportunity. I can only answer to your example that, in the unlikely case anybody ever trying to explain to me that he gets an Attack of Opportunity on an ally running past him in a battle and that, if he kills that ally, he gets an AoO on the bad guy standing right beside him watching the whole thing, I'm going to have a very good laugh out of it, probably even allow it once because the bad guy is simply flabbergasted by this, see that his alignment switches to something more resembling his actual behavior, and get on with the game. And yeah, it might just turn out that next time the wizard summons his creatures to serve as "cannon fodder" for that tactic, they might choose to attack the fighter for real, to at least give him "viable" targets for his AoO+Cleave combo.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
And about those 30 examples...please excuse me, but my time is more needed elsewhere than in designing overspecific examples for generally working rules. *shrugs*
First:
The easiest solution if AOO + cleave is causing a problem, as noted numerous times previously, is to rule 0 it. It is my opinion that people should follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules. If players are abusing the AOO + cleave, then it should be disallowed. However, if it just comes up in the natural flow of combat, then I would allow it whether or not it's realistic.
Second:
For those of you who like to "precisely" follow the rules, the "friendly" summoned monsters + AOO + cleave does not work. The attacks of opportunity section states "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
If a summoned critter is attacking the BBEG, then it is not your enemy. Therefore, there is no attack of opportunity. If the wizard ordered the critter to attack the party fighter, then there are some serious alignment issues occuring. I think they had better duke it out after finishing the BBEG. If the wizard ordered the critter to attack the fighter in order to set up the cleave, then it's not really an enemy.
As mentioned earlier, that line of logic is a bit ridiculous since AOOs "should" not rely upon friend or foe. Afterall, either the creature "let its guard down" or it didn't. However, following the rules to the letter, either the summoned critter is not an enemy, or there are at least three distinct groups in this combat (true, the fighter and wizard might team up for a bit, but let them duke it out afterwords.)
Third:
Other than the friendly summoned monster abuse (and the ignorant mook tactics) arguments, I get the feeling that the main problem with AOO + cleave is the realism.
con: "Why should I get hit because my idiot goblin friend drank a potion"
pro: "Well, the fighter was able to follow through with attack against the idiot goblin"
con: "You mean the fighter would not have been able to take that exact same swing to hit me if the goblin were not there and about to die?"
pro: "Your goblin friend momentairily distracted you through his complete idiocy."
con: "But my goblin friend was invisible."
pro: "So? I drank a potion of See Invisibility five minutes ago. I could see him."
con: "Yeah, but I could not see him, so how could he have distracted me???"
pro: "The blood appearing on my blade from thin air is what distracted you."
con: "But I failed my spot check."
(etc.)
This whole situation arises due to the fundamental nature of D&D combat: turns. The rules are based on people taking their actions one at a time. Unfortunately, no matter how much window dressing the authors provide (such as people constantly defending themselves and looking for oppotunities to strike.... an AOO represents such an oppotunity), 3.5D&D combat is simply not going to be "realistic." Either accept that fact or make adjustments as you see fit to make the game more enjoyable.
In answer to the original question, yes cleaving off of an AOO is legal within the rules. That issue was only momentairly in doubt back somewhere on p.2 or p.3 of this thread.
The real answer: do whatever is most fun.
The easiest solution if AOO + cleave is causing a problem, as noted numerous times previously, is to rule 0 it. It is my opinion that people should follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules. If players are abusing the AOO + cleave, then it should be disallowed. However, if it just comes up in the natural flow of combat, then I would allow it whether or not it's realistic.
Second:
For those of you who like to "precisely" follow the rules, the "friendly" summoned monsters + AOO + cleave does not work. The attacks of opportunity section states "An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you."
If a summoned critter is attacking the BBEG, then it is not your enemy. Therefore, there is no attack of opportunity. If the wizard ordered the critter to attack the party fighter, then there are some serious alignment issues occuring. I think they had better duke it out after finishing the BBEG. If the wizard ordered the critter to attack the fighter in order to set up the cleave, then it's not really an enemy.
As mentioned earlier, that line of logic is a bit ridiculous since AOOs "should" not rely upon friend or foe. Afterall, either the creature "let its guard down" or it didn't. However, following the rules to the letter, either the summoned critter is not an enemy, or there are at least three distinct groups in this combat (true, the fighter and wizard might team up for a bit, but let them duke it out afterwords.)
Third:
Other than the friendly summoned monster abuse (and the ignorant mook tactics) arguments, I get the feeling that the main problem with AOO + cleave is the realism.
con: "Why should I get hit because my idiot goblin friend drank a potion"
pro: "Well, the fighter was able to follow through with attack against the idiot goblin"
con: "You mean the fighter would not have been able to take that exact same swing to hit me if the goblin were not there and about to die?"
pro: "Your goblin friend momentairily distracted you through his complete idiocy."
con: "But my goblin friend was invisible."
pro: "So? I drank a potion of See Invisibility five minutes ago. I could see him."
con: "Yeah, but I could not see him, so how could he have distracted me???"
pro: "The blood appearing on my blade from thin air is what distracted you."
con: "But I failed my spot check."
(etc.)
This whole situation arises due to the fundamental nature of D&D combat: turns. The rules are based on people taking their actions one at a time. Unfortunately, no matter how much window dressing the authors provide (such as people constantly defending themselves and looking for oppotunities to strike.... an AOO represents such an oppotunity), 3.5D&D combat is simply not going to be "realistic." Either accept that fact or make adjustments as you see fit to make the game more enjoyable.
In answer to the original question, yes cleaving off of an AOO is legal within the rules. That issue was only momentairly in doubt back somewhere on p.2 or p.3 of this thread.
The real answer: do whatever is most fun.
Last edited:
certain parts of this thread are becomming pretty ridiculous really
Lets see if we cant put a few of these dogs into a better light.
First of all, as I stated earlier aoo's are not incredibly common. As levels increase the number of ways to avoid them entirely increase dramatically. Even at low levels though they arent terribly common.
A way around this is the summoning trick. Even though the rules actually go against this I have no problem with it. In effect you have one party member burning a full round action plus a spell slot in order to give another character who has spent several feats a few extra attacks, assuming of course that some other factor does not interfere (such as the enemy having the same combo and useing it against you, one or both of the two characters being incapacitated in some way, or any number of other things). It simply sounds like good tactics to me but only useful to an extremely small subset of characters who are specialized to do just this.
Once again, this is a combo where you need two characters who both have a nice amount of resources dumped into it and all it does is give a few extra attacks. Going by useing a 3rd level spell (for d4+1 weak critters) this could grant up to a maximum of 5 bonus attacks for the fighter guy. If the mage gets his spell off, if he rolls maximum, if the fighter type gets a chance to attack these things with the aoo's, if the fighter has a pile of feats, if the fighter has a high dex, and if the fighter hits all of the guys (pretty likely for the summons). The third level spell could have instead been some other third level spell though and possibly done just as much, or summoned a 3rd level beasty who could provide flanking and some other abilities, take hits away from the party (psuedo healing), not require the fighter type guy to have the pile of feats, and it might wind up getting more than those 5 attacks anyway and it has a much lower chance of backfiring.
So, for that tactic if the characters are built in just the right way then sure, it might be useful when they are working together. Team work and tactics. But, even then, it is easier and sometimes better to simply use the spell in another way. Early on this is actually a sink in power, not a boost. Later on one can trade a lower level spell for a big effect, but it still takes quite a bit to get it going and working. That is still a big drawback.
There really isnt any problem here from a power perspective, it can be nice but other things tend to be much better.
Cleave works less and less as levels increase (creatures tend to take more and more hits to take down and have other evasive abilities along with needing to be within range of someone else to attack, not always easy) this is just a minor ability which hardly ever happens, but even when it does all it means is that this feat still grants some sort of a benefit. It is a sad day when people try to hinder a feat that already loses power so rapidly
Cleave is a strange feat, it is one of the few that work better for pcs than npcs. Still though, I havent seen many people take it, it is just too situational. Most of the time it is nicer to simply get another ability that will come up more often or can be better planned for. Which is better, the ability you can depend on to work and plan for it, or one which occasionally might give you a bonus but generally cannot be planned for (even the summon tactic can be very situational, sometimes even available space negates this tactic).
Lets see if we cant put a few of these dogs into a better light.
First of all, as I stated earlier aoo's are not incredibly common. As levels increase the number of ways to avoid them entirely increase dramatically. Even at low levels though they arent terribly common.
A way around this is the summoning trick. Even though the rules actually go against this I have no problem with it. In effect you have one party member burning a full round action plus a spell slot in order to give another character who has spent several feats a few extra attacks, assuming of course that some other factor does not interfere (such as the enemy having the same combo and useing it against you, one or both of the two characters being incapacitated in some way, or any number of other things). It simply sounds like good tactics to me but only useful to an extremely small subset of characters who are specialized to do just this.
Once again, this is a combo where you need two characters who both have a nice amount of resources dumped into it and all it does is give a few extra attacks. Going by useing a 3rd level spell (for d4+1 weak critters) this could grant up to a maximum of 5 bonus attacks for the fighter guy. If the mage gets his spell off, if he rolls maximum, if the fighter type gets a chance to attack these things with the aoo's, if the fighter has a pile of feats, if the fighter has a high dex, and if the fighter hits all of the guys (pretty likely for the summons). The third level spell could have instead been some other third level spell though and possibly done just as much, or summoned a 3rd level beasty who could provide flanking and some other abilities, take hits away from the party (psuedo healing), not require the fighter type guy to have the pile of feats, and it might wind up getting more than those 5 attacks anyway and it has a much lower chance of backfiring.
So, for that tactic if the characters are built in just the right way then sure, it might be useful when they are working together. Team work and tactics. But, even then, it is easier and sometimes better to simply use the spell in another way. Early on this is actually a sink in power, not a boost. Later on one can trade a lower level spell for a big effect, but it still takes quite a bit to get it going and working. That is still a big drawback.
There really isnt any problem here from a power perspective, it can be nice but other things tend to be much better.
Cleave works less and less as levels increase (creatures tend to take more and more hits to take down and have other evasive abilities along with needing to be within range of someone else to attack, not always easy) this is just a minor ability which hardly ever happens, but even when it does all it means is that this feat still grants some sort of a benefit. It is a sad day when people try to hinder a feat that already loses power so rapidly
Cleave is a strange feat, it is one of the few that work better for pcs than npcs. Still though, I havent seen many people take it, it is just too situational. Most of the time it is nicer to simply get another ability that will come up more often or can be better planned for. Which is better, the ability you can depend on to work and plan for it, or one which occasionally might give you a bonus but generally cannot be planned for (even the summon tactic can be very situational, sometimes even available space negates this tactic).
Last edited:
Abraxas
Explorer
Power & balance really aren't the sticking points with me.
I don't think its reasonable that an advantage obtained because one opponent let his guard down should be avaiable against one who didn't.
The RAW say yes, I rule 0 No - its that simple.
We have a druid in the party - so we see a lot of summoned creatures, lots and lots of them. An annoyingly huge number of them. To the point where the party fighters want to smack them because they get in the way. More than once, even using his highest level summon nature's ally spell, the BBEG has killed and cleaved before the summoned creature has done anything. I must say however that has a lot to do with the person playing the Druid.
As for tons of feats - well fighters have tons of feats. In our campaigns, combat reflexes is taken by every fighter that can in order to get those flat footed AoOs in against those pesky high initiative rogues. Cleave and great cleave are taken because we often face lots of mooks so the feats are perhaps more valuable in our campaign.
I don't think its reasonable that an advantage obtained because one opponent let his guard down should be avaiable against one who didn't.
The RAW say yes, I rule 0 No - its that simple.
We have a druid in the party - so we see a lot of summoned creatures, lots and lots of them. An annoyingly huge number of them. To the point where the party fighters want to smack them because they get in the way. More than once, even using his highest level summon nature's ally spell, the BBEG has killed and cleaved before the summoned creature has done anything. I must say however that has a lot to do with the person playing the Druid.
As for tons of feats - well fighters have tons of feats. In our campaigns, combat reflexes is taken by every fighter that can in order to get those flat footed AoOs in against those pesky high initiative rogues. Cleave and great cleave are taken because we often face lots of mooks so the feats are perhaps more valuable in our campaign.
Philip
Explorer
I don't think AoO+Cleave is broken, I do think can lead to weird and uncinematic scenes, and I also think it is "unfair". I will try to explain what I feel is unfair about (more so than other feats, insta-kill spells etc.):
Joe the Fighter is facing three goblins, Arg, Bork and Chell. Joe has the initiative and attacks and kills Arg. He then takes a Cleave attack at Bork. Bork goes down without yelling "unfair"! Why? Because Bork was glad Joe the Fighter attacked Arg first, because Joe could just a easily attacked him. Joe improved Bork's chances of survival by attacking Arg first. And certainly Chell is not protesting, happy as he is with Joe's order of attacks!
Same setup only now the goblins have initiative. Bork realizes Joe the Fighter can kill them without breaking a sweat and plans to use a Withdraw action and move back into the goblin warrens. Unfortunately the foolish Arg loses his composure and runs away, inviting an AoO. What could have been an easy getaway turns into death as Joe attacks, kills Arg and Cleaves into Bork. Now Bork dies with the yell "unfair" on his lips. Why? Because Joe wasn't able to hit him, shouldn't be able to hit him, and now just because Ark lets down his guard, he's dead as well.
With a regular Cleave, the danger to Bork was already there, and being Cleaved is actually fortunate, because the originating attack could just as well be aimed at you. Cleave on AoO creates a danger to Bork where there was none, and there is nothing he can do about it.
Unfairness of AoO+Cleave:
1. A risk created 'out of thin air'
2. No way to avoid it
Joe the Fighter is facing three goblins, Arg, Bork and Chell. Joe has the initiative and attacks and kills Arg. He then takes a Cleave attack at Bork. Bork goes down without yelling "unfair"! Why? Because Bork was glad Joe the Fighter attacked Arg first, because Joe could just a easily attacked him. Joe improved Bork's chances of survival by attacking Arg first. And certainly Chell is not protesting, happy as he is with Joe's order of attacks!
Same setup only now the goblins have initiative. Bork realizes Joe the Fighter can kill them without breaking a sweat and plans to use a Withdraw action and move back into the goblin warrens. Unfortunately the foolish Arg loses his composure and runs away, inviting an AoO. What could have been an easy getaway turns into death as Joe attacks, kills Arg and Cleaves into Bork. Now Bork dies with the yell "unfair" on his lips. Why? Because Joe wasn't able to hit him, shouldn't be able to hit him, and now just because Ark lets down his guard, he's dead as well.
With a regular Cleave, the danger to Bork was already there, and being Cleaved is actually fortunate, because the originating attack could just as well be aimed at you. Cleave on AoO creates a danger to Bork where there was none, and there is nothing he can do about it.
Unfairness of AoO+Cleave:
1. A risk created 'out of thin air'
2. No way to avoid it
nhl_1997 said:
Sorry, you are totally incorrect here.
I am the player of the Fighter.
I decide who is my enemy. The game system does not decide. The DM does not decide. My fellow players do not decide.
I do.
My fellow PC party members could become my enemies at a moments notice if I decide that.
If a DM ruled that I could not AoO the summoned mooks running past me because they are not my enemy, I would politely explain that he does not decide who my enemies are, I do.
If he did not change his ruling and continued to push such blatant stupidity into my face, I would leave the game. It is as simple as that.
I am the only one who decides the thoughts, opinions, and attempted actions of my PC (unless magic is involved or something). It is my PC, not anyone else's.
Similar Threads
