Cleaving after an AoO

[Hypersmurf]

Some actions are more effective than others. As are some attack combinations.

No, I mean how can you consider that one attack that hits two targets?

It's an immediate extra melee attack, but it doesn't work as 'the same attack'.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

What difference does that make?

He could make three attacks; with Cleave he can make four.

The defender sees fighters like that chop down three of his minions each round all the time, but this one can chop down four! Where dfoes the extra attack come from?

However you explain Cleave, you can explain Cleave from an AoO.

-Hyp.

Okay, this is going into the abstract philosophical question of "What does an attack roll represent?"

To me, an attack roll does not always represent a single strike with a weapon, although it can, as in the case of thrown weapons, projectile weapons, and perhaps Spring Attack, Ride-by Attack and Whirlwind Attack.

Rather, an attack roll represents the chance that the attacker will be able to hit and damage the defender over the course of a round. In melee combat, the attacker is assumed to swing his weapon several times. Individual swings may be parried, blocked, dodged, etc., but the attack roll represents the net effect of all the strikes instead of any specific one. (The issue of "What do hit points represent?" is a tangentially related point - in the "hp = vitality points" system, a "hit" that reduces hit points might represent a weapon swing that does not actually injure the defender, but tires him slightly as he dodges or parries the blow).

If a defender drops his defences momentarily, this creates an opening that an attacker can exploit. This is represented by giving the attacker an additional attack roll - an AOO.

So what does Cleave represent in this system? Perhaps the ability to press the attack on two (or more, with Great Cleave) opponents at a time, so that if one can be dispatched easily, the quality of the attack against the other does not suffer (the attacker still gets to make the same number of attack rolls against him).

So, an attacker with Cleave presses the attack on two opponents simultaneously, and one drops his guard momentarily. He gets an AOO against that opponent, and is still able to press the attack against the other. However, since the other defender has not dropped his guard, the attacker gets no additional advantage against him. He continues to press the attack against him, just as he would if the other defender was not there, but that does not translate into an "extra" attack roll.

Of course, you can also explain Cleave in other ways, e.g. an adrenaline surge that increases the attacker's offensive capabaility, that would allow for an "extra" attack roll.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He continues to press the attack against him, just as he would if the other defender was not there, but that does not translate into an "extra" attack roll.

Of course, you can also explain Cleave in other ways, e.g. an adrenaline surge that increases the attacker's offensive capabaility, that would allow for an "extra" attack roll.

And since the Cleave feat does translate into an extra attack roll, the 'pressing attack' explanation is insufficient by itself to explain the feat

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

And since the Cleave feat does translate into an extra attack roll, the 'pressing attack' explanation is insufficient by itself to explain the feat

-Hyp.

That was the bit about the quality of the attack against one defender not suffering if the other can be dispatched easily. Essentially, the attacker attacks him as if the other defender was not there. And if the other defender provokes an AOO, the attacker still attacks the first defender as if the other defender was not there, i.e. no additional attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And if the other defender provokes an AOO, the attacker still attacks the first defender as if the other defender was not there, i.e. no additional attack.

So again, that flavour doesn't suffice to handle the rules... more flavour required

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

So again, that flavour doesn't suffice to handle the rules... more flavour required

-Hyp.

No ally:
Well, if the attacker gets three iterative attacks, he makes three attack rolls against the defender in a round.

Cleave on attacker's turn:
If he's attacking a defender with a weak ally, he presses the attack against them both and the effort he needs to make an attack roll against the weak ally is so negligible that he is still able to make three attack rolls against the defender in a round, as if the ally was not present.

Ally provokes AOO:
If the weak ally provokes an AOO, the attacker is able to dispatch him with negligible effort and continue attacking the defender as if the ally was not there. Which means, he still makes three attack rolls in a round.

Allowing Cleave off an AOO would mean that the attacker gets four attack rolls against the defender, but that's not what I'm supposed to describe, right?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I allow a Cleave on an AoO. As FireLance stated, I see the attacker as simultaneously exchanging blows with any and all attackers within his threat range. An AoO is a momentary opening that allows what was otherwise a negligible swing to become a serious threat (and therefore get an attack roll.)

I use a variety of different descriptions of Cleave. In the case of enemies standing beside each other, I like the ol' "cut through one guy, follow through to the other" description. For Cleaves where the opponents are not adjacent, I tend to describe it as one foe's death causing a momentary drop of the other foe's guard. Perhaps the foes were good friends. Perhaps the remaining foe was shaken by seeing his buddy's guts spilt out over the dungeon floor. Perhaps (as someone else described) you swing the downed foe into the standing one. Whatever the reason, it gives the attacker a chance to have one of his thrusts become a serious threat (and thus gain an attack.)

In a way, Cleave basically allows you to gain an AoO on another foe in range, if you manage to drop one. It creates an AoO, similar to the way Hold The Line creates an AoO for moving into a threatened space. The only difference is that Cleave's granted attack doesn't count toward your limit of AoOs. It has its own restriction, which can be expanded by picking up Great Cleave.

Ah, well. Works for me.

 

[Thanee]

So you have something else to discuss...

Attacks of Opportunity and the Special Initiative Actions (as well as Immediate Actions) are the only exceptions to the general rule, that you can only act during your own turn.

So, a Cleave attack cannot be made outside of your own turn.

Of course, it is immediate, and so you gain it right after the AoO, but since it is not your turn, you cannot use it and have to forfeit it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hypersmurf]

Attacks of Opportunity and the Special Initiative Actions (as well as Immediate Actions) are the only exceptions to the general rule, that you can only act during your own turn.

Well, no... the rule seems to be that you can only take actions during your turn.

The attack from Cleave is not an action. It's not a free action, or a movwe action, or a standard action, or a full round action. Like an AoO, it's no sort of action at all. It's just an attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

So you have something else to discuss...

Attacks of Opportunity and the Special Initiative Actions (as well as Immediate Actions) are the only exceptions to the general rule, that you can only act during your own turn.

So, a Cleave attack cannot be made outside of your own turn.

Of course, it is immediate, and so you gain it right after the AoO, but since it is not your turn, you cannot use it and have to forfeit it.

Bye
Thanee

No offense, but can you show me where the RAW states that only the actions you mentioned are the only actions you can take out of turn? I agree, these are exceptions, but I haven't seen anything that says Cleave is not an exception to this rule...

Again, no offense, but anything beuond "Cleave cannot be taken out of turn" or some such direct statement would seem to be inferred information. Remember, Salem witch trials were based almost completely on inferred evidence (she was on my property a year ago, and my cow died. SHE'S A WITCH!!!)

An oddball example, but adequete for showing what can happen if direct evidence is not presented...