I apologize ahead of time. Having trouble with the 'quote options'.
"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."
But the given example implied the deliberate summons by a friendly mage. Using summoned creatures to provide deliberate targets for an AoO seems like metagaming, especially if other creative options can be used (thinking beyond the numeberS)
.
I would still question why a BBEG is summoning uncontrollable creatures so close to himself, knowing the disadvantage. It's similar to calling a pack of wolves or hunting dogs to fight, then getting caught in the mob. Then I can see a fighter gaining an advantage, if he trained for mass combat. The problem here would be the DM, and hopefully they learned from it.
"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."
So why summon them if this is the case? Either a player is using D&D logic to gain an advantage, or the BBEG is making a big mistake. The problem still is not the mechanic, but whether it's metagaming or a huge error in judgement, especially if the BBEG knew the fighter can Cleave.
(off topic)
I'd also argue that animals don't avoid AoO's.Ever see a cat or dog fight (I just have to look outside, so no jokes about going to pit fights!!). They generally go for side or flank shot, to avoid claws/teeth. They also tend to run around each other, not getting close enough to hit unless they are also hitting (cats cover about half a block at times!!). Given the many examples of humans learning hunting tactics from observing wild animals, I'd imagine that creatures encountered in the D&D settings are no different (if they are successful enough at hunting to live to adulthood).Avoiding getting hit doesn't require training to understand, just training to improve your chances.
"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."
Not if the idea is to sacrifice them for a loophole. A better option (IMHO) would be to ajudicate some AC penalty due to the distraction, similar to the swarm effect.
"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)?"
Again, this is the intent of the player. Are you using tactics, or using a loophole (hitting friendlies gives an AoO). Even if they don't get close, that's one action that doesn't focus on the players.
"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."
Again, this goes to the intent of the caster. Are you using the creatures as an attack, or to gain some nonsensical advantage (see the police dog example above). Aid in attacking is one thing, but bending D&D rules for an easily negated advantage in the long run (if a DM sees abuse, they plan to negate it ahead of time)is some thing else. It may also call the attention of higher powers, but that's for later...
"The intent of the caster is to stop the BBEG with the resources at hand."
Agreed. If you think outside the box (outside or around D&D rules), you have plenty of advantages. Use the terrain, pay attention to the details. I can't give anything else without knowing all the details of the conflict, but using a numbers game could not have been the only option.
"Never said they were. Disagreement with the AoO/Cleave routine has nothing to do with fair."
Sorry, I had been answering another post. The arguement had been that it was an unfair advantage to fighters (yet spellcasters can call lightning.) I think the arguement would be better worded as 'the advantage is implausable.'. I disagree, but...
"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.
"
Again, this can be considered metagaming. Can you gain AoO for friendlies? If so, what does this say about the players? What consequenses are there for these actions? And saying that higher powers do not care for their subjects is not a valid arguement. It would be the same as kingdoms on earth. Some kings do, some kings don't. DM adjuicates what fits.
"As Ridley's Cohort said, disallowing AoO/Cleave is a reasonable patch to this loophole for those of us that find AoO/Cleaves unreasonable."
Agreed, if you find it unreasonable. Not to be totally nonconstructive, but I base my view from fights or conflicts I have personally witnessed. In these conflicts, people get far more than 4 to 5 attacks a round, and they aren't 20th level. In mass combat (simulated or not) folks get hit for actions of others around them, not nesseccarily from the sheer poower of the attack (THAT concept I would tend to argue).
"Its a heck of a lot more reasonable than disallowing Improved Crit and Keen to stack.
"
Again, I agree. I hated that change, and several 3.5 OGL books have negated it as part of the campaign world.
IMHO, the AoO+cleave combo makes sense, and I believe I have seen multiple real world uses of said tactic in the past. The DM has to keep it in check
