Cleaving after an AoO

[Storyteller01]

The characters can be 30 feet away from each other and you can still AoO/Cleave.

...............A
X X X X X
X O O OX
X O F O X
X O O OX
B X X X X

A - first opponent
B - second opponent
F - fighter with a guisarme and the combat reflexes and cleave feats. F threatens all the spots marked with an X and the spot marked B.

A has initiative, and closes on F provoking an AoO. F's AoO drops A, Cleave kicks in and he smacks B. B is 30 feet away from A

F attacks A. B closes on F, seeing an exposed back and presumably easy target. F pivots on the balls of his/her feet, thumping b in the head with the butt end of said guisarme. Won't warrant the same damage (would actaully be something closer to a club) but it is a good example, and often used as a martial tactic.

This may cause problems with Two weapons fighting rulings, but that's another thread.


As for CLeaving on horseback, I would tend to agree that guisarme could not be used to cleave (to unwieldy, since it was probably used as a lance, unless the fighter wasn't using his hands to control the horse. Even then, the fighter lacks stability). Swords are another matter

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So anyone next to the guy with blood in his eyes that has combat refelxes and one or both cleave feats should be able to attack him also.

No, you can only take advantage of the "momentum change" if you caused it, for the same reason that no one - including the "No AoO on Cleave" people - gets to make a Cleave attempt if someone else kills something you're threatening. It's one of those split second things.

However, I can see a potentially interesting new feat coming out of this, granting someone the ability to make an AoO whenever an enemy they're threatening is dropped ... Prereqs: Cleave and Combat Reflexes, usable once per round, etc ... Reactive Cleave, maybe? Mechanically similar to the Rogue's Opportunist ability?

Also, don't deliberately stretch an illustrative analogy too far, mmkay? I swear, the truest words ever not spoken were when someone posted, "Using an analogy on the internet is like saying, 'Deliberately misinterpret me.'"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I enjoy double posting.

 

[Storyteller01]

Okay...

So far as I can tell, this arguement revolves around the nerfing of CLeave in specific situations...

1) the summoning creatures/bag o' puppies tactic:
Looks like that is pretty much up in the air. By the RAW, it is technically legal (dependant on your DM's definition of 'enemy'). From the higher powers stand point, it is dependant on the views of your deity (which goes back to the DM). I do have some questions on this, and please think beyond the RAW (since I have be given and fulfilled requests on making cinematic/real world sense of a written rule interpretation).

a) if a creature comes to your aid, is it really an enemy?
b) if a wizard attacks you with summoned creatures to gain the advantage, are you realy better off, especially if they DO hit (natural 20's are still out there).
c) if yur deity allows for such sacrifices or uses of their minions, can you give me an example of hitting an ally personally (with your own melee weapon) to gain some advantage?
Please be as specific as possible.

2) The targets did not know about the other.
Again, this is dependant on the DM, but IMHO, the question should be 'what did the fighter perceive, and how are they controlling the situation?'.

3) Reach weapons
Again, up in the air. I've seen (as have many of you out there) martail arts expos where practitioners used 10' Bo staves and chain whips to striking effect (yea, I know, by the RAW you can't Cleave with a whip, but a spiked chain works in a similar manner).

4)It doesn't seem fair
That's between the DM and the players. Personally, I'd much rather deal with the fighter being able to CLeave my party to heck and back, than worry about fair. More of a challenge that way

5) It doesn't make sense, cinematically, realistically, or visually.

For this, I would ask those with real experience of some kind (none of us have the experience to be 20th level fighters, but still...) to give us a situation that they have been in, and whether this tactic did or did not work. Granted, these accounts will be biased by perspective, but it should give an a decent overall view as to what works on average.

if such an example is given, please don't rebuttal with 'said person does not have the CLeave feat' or some other mechanical arguement. Given the abstract nature of game we really don't know if they do or don't. My point is to gain a series of examples, then use said info to see if the above examples (I'm behind a door, yet someone tripping behind the wall gets me killed) are or are not possible.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh, I wonder if this thing here can get even more funny by the addition of the words "Great Cleave"

 

[Hypersmurf]

3) Ranged weapons

Reach weapons, not ranged weapons. A Cleave is a melee attack.

(yea, I know, by the RAW you can't Cleave with a whip...)

In 3E, you couldn't, since an attack with a whip was a ranged attack, not a melee attack.

But in 3.5, Cleaving with a whip is perfectly legal.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

However, I can see a potentially interesting new feat coming out of this, granting someone the ability to make an AoO whenever an enemy they're threatening is dropped ... Prereqs: Cleave and Combat Reflexes, usable once per round, etc ... Reactive Cleave, maybe? Mechanically similar to the Rogue's Opportunist ability?

Check out the prc Tactical Soldier in the minis handbook. Delayed cleave allows him to take a cleave if someone knocks down the guy he last hit as an aoo.

 

[Abraxas]

Also, don't deliberately stretch an illustrative analogy too far, mmkay? I swear, the truest words ever not spoken were when someone posted, "Using an analogy on the internet is like saying, 'Deliberately misinterpret me.'"

I didn't, mmkay?
Your momentum comments came after the second quote, mmkay?
You seemed to be saying that the distraction should allow a special kind of AoO, mmkay?
I was noting that it should then help another combatant with the same feats, mmkay?

Sorry about the sarcasm, but the condescending "mmkay" just irks me.
We disagree, I'm cool with that, no need to be condescending.

The problem with your analogy is that the distration of a second opponent can end for numerous reasons other than that opponent being dropped by our AoO/cleaving buddy. Why doesn't he suddenly get to double his efforts against his remaining opponent and get a free attack then?

In addition you're creating an ingame effect that doesn't normally occur. One character can be attacked by numerous opponents and as long as they don't flank him they cause no distraction in game terms. He fights equally well against all of them, why wouldn't they fight equally well against him regardless of the number of other opponents?

You can come up with as many scenarios as you like to describe why the AoO/cleave should occur - I don't think they're very reasonable, given they would apply in so many other situations also.

So far as I can tell, this arguement revolves around the nerfing of CLeave in specific situations...

Actually it is only in one situation - when one would get an extra attack against a foe that didn't provoke an AoO. Everything else was just examples showing a possible abuse. Plus, given the FAQ answer about figments, you don't even have to tread the "Is it morally right" path.

As for the attacking someone on your side to get an advantage - an analogous event happens all the time in games I have played in. The specific situation usually revolves around someone having immunity, or a high resistance, to a specific energy type grappling and pinning an opponent. The two are then blasted by the casters with that energy type knowing it won't do much if anything to our buddy, but the bad guy doesn't get his reflex save and gets hammered. Heck, my rogues have often let themselves be blasted while I keep opponents bottled up because I know I probably won't fail my reflex save and have evasion.

There is a problem with asking for real experience - no one I know of has any experience with allies that can't really die.

Heh, I wonder if this thing here can get even more funny by the addition of the words "Great Cleave"

No but if you bring up Supreme Cleave it'll become a laugh riot.

OK, now I'm gonna go over to meta and ask why I can't access any of the drop down menus that control formatting and the addition of smilies n stuff. Those little buggers really help set a posts tone.

 

[KarinsDad]

Incorrect.

*IF* you were really, really distracted by the blood in your eyes, then yes, you'd provoke an AoO from everyone (say, distracted enough to need a Heal check). But you're not really distracted all that much.

Instead, only someone who has specifically trained to take advantage of such small gaps in defense can benefit.

As in, only someone who's picked up the Cleave feat can benefit from this momentary lapse.

Except that in a cinematic explanation like yours, someone with Cleave "throws blood into the eyes" of whomever he wants to within 5 feet because he can pick who to cleave, regardless of the situation (them having a Shield spell to stop it, them being incorporeal, them being part of a Mirror Image spell, etc.).

Not only that, he throws blood in the eyes of whomever he wants to in a 10 foot radius if he is using a Spiked Chain, even if they have cover from someone else.

Plus, if someone else is trained in Cleave, they CANNOT take advantage of those momentary lapses.

Are you starting to comprehend how ludicrous cinematic explanations of game mechanics are? They lend nothing to a reasonable discussion.


Another problem with the people who try to justify game mechanics with cinematics is that they tend to be "rules cheerleaders", regardless of what rule we are talking about.

For example, if the Cleave rule was "You can only use Cleave on your turn", chances are good that YOU would be using DIFFERENT cinematic explanations for why NOT being able to Cleave with AoO is a good thing.

This is a pointless exercise on your part. It proves nothing and in fact, illustrates that balance and fun are the ultimate measuring sticks for the quality of rules and game mechanics, not cinematics.

Cinematic explanations of any rule are a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Storyteller01]

Reach weapons, not ranged weapons. A Cleave is a melee attack.

Sorry. Tend to type faster than I think...