Cleaving after an AoO

[Storyteller01]

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.

Still begs the question "how did he get that close?".

I know, I'm being argumentative. Can't help myself.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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.

I hope I don't sound patronizing here, btw...if I do, I apologize in forehand. The thing is, with nearly every rule in the books I can construct a scene that makes that rule look overpowered, underpowered, unfair or broken. The question is if something like that ever comes up in-game. If it did in yours, I'd suggest taking away the miniatures and rely more on describing the scene. Will keep the more strategic-minded players from exploring every nook and cranny of the rules for silly advantages on the battlemap.
As a counter to your scene, I like scenes where the fighter wades through a horde of onrushing skeletons, breaking three of them left and right and serving up a hard wallop to their master as a finishing touch...can be done with lots of rules mechanics, by the way.

For the second scenario...hey, if that Giant actually has Cleave, then the cohort still has acted heroically, and the hero will notice that his opponent is an even greater challenge than he though, right?

 

[Philip]

I hope I don't sound patronizing here, btw...if I do, I apologize in forehand. The thing is, with nearly every rule in the books I can construct a scene that makes that rule look overpowered, underpowered, unfair or broken. The question is if something like that ever comes up in-game. If it did in yours, I'd suggest taking away the miniatures and rely more on describing the scene. Will keep the more strategic-minded players from exploring every nook and cranny of the rules for silly advantages on the battlemap.

No apology neccessary. IMO most 3.5 combat rules actually create quite good scenes. Flanking rules cause the battlefield to flow, opponents to circle each other and a lone opponent trying to defend from a corner so as not to get surrounded. Great cleave causes good fighters to jump right in the middle of a bunch of mooks and swing their weapon with abandon. Power attack and Combat Expertise sees fighting alternate between offensive and defensive strategies. All in all, good tactical use of the rules and abilities also makes quite a pleasant scene. A big advantage over previous editions where combatants just stood toe to toe hacking at each other.

There are just a few rules that jar my suspension of disbelief, that cause tactically sound decisions and metagaming to result in nonsensical scenes, and the AoO-Cleave combo is one of them.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

There are just a few rules that jar my suspension of disbelief, that cause tactically sound decisions and metagaming to result in nonsensical scenes, and the AoO-Cleave combo is one of them.

Oh, I'm with you there. AoO are one of those points where I'm having a hard time, sometimes, to keep my imagination up...like people getting an AoO before a disarming attempt, and not after you tried it and failed, and the rules trying to tell me I let my defense down because I try to disarm my opponent.
I'm at a point where I ponder to have an AoO that is used from somebody who is in melee already with another provoke an immediate AoO from his opponent, because, to me, somebody who is in melee with somebody cannot simply attack someone elsewho's running past him without giving his real opponent an opening, too...but that's all Rule 0 context

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Actually, Spanish Staff fighting is performed PRECISELY like this.

So:

Whirlwind: 1
Cleave: 0

 

[KarinsDad]

I hope I don't sound patronizing here, btw...if I do, I apologize in forehand. The thing is, with nearly every rule in the books I can construct a scene that makes that rule look overpowered, underpowered, unfair or broken.

Ok, I'll take you up on your claim.

Post 30 "broken rules" (out of the thousands of rules and you must post real broken ones, not ticky tac stuff).

 

[Thanee]

Fighters having a better BAB than wizards is broken, if the whole world is covered by an antimagic field.

Stuff like that?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by 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."

The difference is the "cleaver" did it on the "cleaver's" turn not on the "cleavee's" turn.

 

[KarinsDad]

Fighters having a better BAB than wizards is broken, if the whole world is covered by an antimagic field.

Stuff like that?

Yeah, stuff like that.

 

[KarinsDad]

The difference is the "cleaver" did it on the "cleaver's" turn not on the "cleavee's" turn.

This is such an easy concept. I just don't understand why people don't understand it?

The Cleave rule is broken (and yes, I will use the 'b' word). It should only be on your turn. Then it wouldn't be broken.

Fred opens a vial and provokes an AoO.
Killer wipes Fred out.
Killer sunders Barney's shield (Cleave and Improved Sunder)
Killer trips Barney (Combat Brute and Improved Trip)
Killer rages, attacks the prone Barney at +6 to hit and hits him (or sunders his weapon or whatever) (Instantaneous Rage)
Killer Shakens another (or the same) opponent within 30 feet (Intimidating Rage)

All because Fred opened a vial?

And what if all of this happened because Killer's spell casting ally cast Monster Summoning III and Killer has Great Cleave and did all of this 3 or 4 times outside of his turn? That's more powerful in some ways than Time Stop.


Cleave with AoO has the (very easy) potential to be STRONGER than a feat for a spell caster that allowed him to cast spells outside of his turn. Would you allow casting outside the character's turn in your game? If not, why would you allow a boatload of combat feats outside the character's turn in your game?

It is all about balance.

People generally do not have a problem with this being done on a character's turn. We just have a problem with it being done outside his turn.

If a feat gives an additional attack (for whatever reason), it should not be allowed during an AoO. Period.

The only attack you should get during an AoO is the AoO itself.