Cleaving after an AoO

[Geron Raveneye]

It is not fair to the character who did not provoke the AoO.

...

If Cleave was implemented in another way (like Whirlwind where you use your full attack to achieve an attack on a second creature after an attack on a first), you wouldn't be trying to justify it as a "possible cinematic effect".

But something like Whirlwind Attack is fair? The thing is, both feats grant a character a significant advantage in combat, and both would be nonsensical from a "real combat" point of view...if you ever try to attack 6 guys standing around you with a mace or a longsword by "rotating" around your axis or whatever, you'd see it will stop after the second guy. In D&D, you take a feat to signify special training in something, or a talent. Cleave enables you to control your attacks so that an instant kill gives you the opportunity to use the remaining swing to go against another one..nothing says you get advantages to hit, or the other loses AC boni, or anything else. Whirlwindd Attack means you give up your usual combat timing to take a swing at everybody close around you.
Of course we're talking cinematic reasons..most feats are nothing but trying to insert some cinematic flair into D&D. Arguing a feat from "real combat" point of view simply is counterproductive?

 

[Philip]

If the rule invites tactics that are totally nonsensical are a fair target for rule 0.

I think the summon monster example is excellent in demonstrating this for the AoO - Cleave combo.

As BBEG I would send away my mooks prior to combat, because a fear spell would send them all running, and invite several cleave attacks on myself. Or worse, order my mooks to run away, and AoO them myself so that I can use the Cleave's from my spiked chain to kill the enemy's wizard before he gets his next spell off.

The fact that you even need to define some group as 'enemies' to make an argument against these tactics is stupid. An 'ally' running past me is just as eligble for AoO's (maybe even more so) as an enemy, normally you are just assumed not to make use of such 'opportunities'.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Or get better mooks?

 

[Philip]

The thing is, both feats grant a character a significant advantage in combat, and both would be nonsensical from a "real combat" point of view...

You seem to confuse nonsensical with unrealistic. Sure, there are a lot of abilities which are over-the-top unrealistic from a "real combat" point of view. The thing is, the AoO-Cleave is unrealistic from a DnD point of view. The tactics that it invites are in no way representative of the heroic combat. Whirlwind attack is. If i see people sending summoned monsters running past the BBEG to use the AoO-Cleave combo, I know I am watching weird tactical simulation game, and not a FRPG. Whirlwind Attack and Cleave I can imagine easily. The uses of AoO-Cleave I have seen less so. I think the tactic is often not cinematic at all.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, how do people who are arguing "fairness*" accept Cleave to begin with, anyway?

"The hero killed him - why do *I* get hit, too? That's not fair."

It really seems to me (total agreement with Scion here), that your problem is really with Cleave, and not with Cleave-on-AoO.

* Fairness as in, "My ally didn't 5' step before drinking a potion and got killed. How come *I* have to suffer?"

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If the rule invites tactics that are totally nonsensical are a fair target for rule 0.

I think the summon monster example is excellent in demonstrating this for the AoO - Cleave combo.

As BBEG I would send away my mooks prior to combat, because a fear spell would send them all running, and invite several cleave attacks on myself. Or worse, order my mooks to run away, and AoO them myself so that I can use the Cleave's from my spiked chain to kill the enemy's wizard before he gets his next spell off.

The fact that you even need to define some group as 'enemies' to make an argument against these tactics is stupid. An 'ally' running past me is just as eligble for AoO's (maybe even more so) as an enemy, normally you are just assumed not to make use of such 'opportunities'.

I believe a group of players (and characters) that starts attacking an ally in combat to gain the advantage of one additional attack has different, and worse, problems than the AoO+Cleave combo being a bit too cinematic for some tastes.

 

[Storyteller01]

If the rule invites tactics that are totally nonsensical are a fair target for rule 0.

I think the summon monster example is excellent in demonstrating this for the AoO - Cleave combo.

As BBEG I would send away my mooks prior to combat, because a fear spell would send them all running, and invite several cleave attacks on myself. Or worse, order my mooks to run away, and AoO them myself so that I can use the Cleave's from my spiked chain to kill the enemy's wizard before he gets his next spell off.

The fact that you even need to define some group as 'enemies' to make an argument against these tactics is stupid. An 'ally' running past me is just as eligble for AoO's (maybe even more so) as an enemy, normally you are just assumed not to make use of such 'opportunities'.

If you can cast all those spells, how is the fighter getting anywhere near you? Why is a wizard trying to control monsters when he should be running for his life anyway?

If I'm within melee range, hitting the Mage on an AoO is irrelevant. On my next turn, swing on the mage. Summoned monsters disappear.

It's similar to using an M2 .50 cal machine gun at melee range. Lots of power, if you have time to aim it. Good luck.


Seriously, I think we can all agree that rule 0 applies, if for no other reason than to maintain sanity. If we really have to determine what is realistic (we can agrue fair, but let's face it... real fights [escpecially to the death] are never fair), we need to talk to someone who's been in the situation. Otherwise, this is all in the realm of theory and conjecture. No winner without proof.

 

[Philip]

I believe a group of players (and characters) that starts attacking an ally in combat to gain the advantage of one additional attack has different, and worse, problems than the AoO+Cleave combo being a bit too cinematic for some tastes.

So true, so true.

I just don't like it when a player delays turning the undead until the ghouls are in a position that when they run away, they run past the BBEG and the others attack said BBEG will get AoO and Cleaves.

I also like it when a cohort comes charging at the giant, trying to save his master by taking the AoO and giving the master the opportunity to run away. I don't like it if the cohort is taken down by an AoO, and the giant kills the master with the resulting cleave. Which would result in the player wanting to tell the Cohort not to charge in, but not being able to do so without metagaming.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You seem to confuse nonsensical with unrealistic. Sure, there are a lot of abilities which are over-the-top unrealistic from a "real combat" point of view. The thing is, the AoO-Cleave is unrealistic from a DnD point of view. The tactics that it invites are in no way representative of the heroic combat. Whirlwind attack is. If i see people sending summoned monsters running past the BBEG to use the AoO-Cleave combo, I know I am watching weird tactical simulation game, and not a FRPG. Whirlwind Attack and Cleave I can imagine easily. The uses of AoO-Cleave I have seen less so. I think the tactic is often not cinematic at all.

Let me just summarize a few of the argumentative ways that have been taken here, and voice my opinion on them, okay?

From a rules point of view, a Cleave following an AoO doesn't seem to be forbidden, so not much of an argument here.

From a "realistic" point of view, claiming a warrior who is trained to use the remaining swing from an instant kill to attack the next guy can't do so on one specialized attack sounds a bit weird to my ears, too...just because I used this special opportunity to kill one opponent means I cannot use my training to carry over the attack to my next opponent? Hmmmm.


To argue from a "heroic fight" point of view opens a lot of questions about what's to be considered heroic in a D&D fight in the first place. Sneak attack? Attacking a flat-footed opponent? Attacking invisibly? Heroic fighting is a nice concept, but as far as I can see, D&D goes more for cinematic, flashy combat, not so much heroic.

And fairness? Sorry, but if somebody tells me I can't use a trained tactic in a fight because it's not "fair" to my opponent...then I'm either playing my character completely against his alignment, or I have to ask back where the ring judge is standing in that fight.

 

[Philip]

If I'm within melee range, hitting the Mage on an AoO is irrelevant. On my next turn, swing on the mage. Summoned monsters disappear.
.

On the contrary, you just have moved into melee range on your turn. The mage will get his turn before you get yours and beat him down. But if someone else that acts before the mage turn invites AoO's, you can Cleave the mage to death before he can disable you with the Hold Monster.