Cleaving after an AoO

[R-Hero]

Ok, so Cleave gives you an extra melee attack, but an attack of opportunity only allows you one melee attack. By a strict reading of the rules, Cleave won't give you an extra melee attack during an attack of opportunity because you only get one attack during an attack of opportunity. Combat Reflexes is the only exception that gives you more attacks of opportunity, but even Combat Reflexes doesn't give you more than one attack for a given opportunity.

($0.02)

I aggree with this interpritation of the rules. An A.O.O. is a quick reflex to an opening in your opponents defenses. (A boxer sneaking in a short jab to his opponents ribs, for example) Relying on Reflex (Dexterity)

Cleave is a full blown attack that has so much force in it that momentum carries through the dropped opponent and a well trained fighter is able to harness some of that power and re-direct to another opponent.
(The same boxer, planing his foot, shifting weight and bringing his focused power in the form of a brain rattling upper-cut) Relying on Muscle (Strength)

Without the feat, the attack is over while the character is trying to maintain balance and focus in on the next target.

Personally, I think cleave should be at the Lowest attack for realism, but in the game it wouldn't be very fun because so many would miss. (Maybe a -4 to attack would be more balanced)

This has been my two cents

 

[Lasher Dragon]

This whole issue of cleaves on AoO being broken can be resolved rather easily - as the DM, don't rush in stupidly with lots of low HD enemies. Don't drink a freakin potion when you are a weak-ass goblin within smacking distance of the huge half-orc in full plate with the greataxe. If you as the DM mess up and give away an AoO, be prepared to suffer the consequences, just as the PCs always must be on their guard against provoking AoO. ESPECIALLY when you have the huge cleavemaster staring you down waiting for his chance to strike.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, one try at a justification for a Cleave following up an Attack of Opportunity would be that any single attack that drops it's target with one strike is distracting enough to make the allies of the dropped target be dumbstruck for just a second, and be a target for the Cleave. This is not written in the rules, I know, but it easily gives a nice explanation and leaves Cleave as follow-up option for an Attack of Opportunity.

What Karinsdad is trying to say with his example of a non-existant opponent is, in my opinion, that an Attack of Opportunity on somebody who isn't of any consequence to your potential Cleave target shouldn't make that target vulnerable to your Cleave attempt in the first place. Here I'd like to argue that somebody who has learned to turn an immediate kill into an advantage for his own battle timing might very well do so with a "lucky opening strike", which is represented by the Attack of Opportunity. I haven't been in any real fights yet, and I'm damn grateful for it, too, but I've always had the impression that a lot of combat training goes into making your mind recognize an opportunity in a split-second and apply your training to take the best advantag of it. That's what Cleave following an AoO represents. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Storyteller01]

I know people doing stupid things can make it harder for you. Without giving one of your wild examples of someone casting a fireball, explain the following example. Fighter with spiked chain is fighting a mummy who is within 5'. 10' away on the other side of a fighter there is a goblin who gets scared and runs away from the fight. Explain how that goblin really made it disadvantageous for the mummy so it makes sense to use the Cleave on AoO mechanic. If you can do that, you've earned yourself a cookie... and you might just convince me to want to use it too. If you can't come up with a convincing explanation, maybe at least you will have more respect for those that don't bother allowing it in their games.

A continuation of momentum, same as with a standard Cleave (IMHO). The fighter took left over power from a previous strike and diverted it to another target. the concept is similar to European and Japanese battlefield techniques. Basic idea, go with the flow of combat, and take shots when they become available. i've actually been in this situation in a dojo. It was 2 against 1, the instructor being the 1. My partner stumbles and falls. The instructor nails him with an overhead strike, then pulls a 180 on the balls of his feet as I come in from the rear. Gets me with another overhead strike (his fastest option, since attacks to the side would be telegraphed and blocked). Bamboo sword or not, my head rang for the rest of the day...

somewhat off the wall, but maybe a better example. Japanese swordmanship teaches to deflect, not block, most incoming attacks. When you deflect, you can redirect the energy back into an attack (yep, the target kills himself). This is effective because attacking creates an opening (an AoO mightmare, so its good that no one has agrued for THAT concept).

also remeber efficiency in momentum. If I take a shot at the inside of a targets thigh (going for arteries), you can bet its because I can carry that momentum into another attack or parry. ie: if I strike, I've got the next strike planned (Aikido principle of controlling the fight). Why would I attack the thigh? He made it a target (AoO). Whether it was because he stepped back or drank a potion is academic.

Another good example is Aikido. the whole idea is to create AoO's and use them against everyone. Opponent 1 steps back (defensive, potion, etc), so he gets opponent 2 thrown into him. Or if Opponent one freezes (it happens) or stops to focus on something , he gets thrown into opponent two. Either way, you capitalize on the mistakes of one to nail them both.


So...wheres my cookie??

 

[Storyteller01]

($0.02)

Cleave is a full blown attack that has so much force in it that momentum carries through the dropped opponent and a well trained fighter is able to harness some of that power and re-direct to another opponent.
(The same boxer, planing his foot, shifting weight and bringing his focused power in the form of a brain rattling upper-cut) Relying on Muscle (Strength)

Without the feat, the attack is over while the character is trying to maintain balance and focus in on the next targe

you could also argue that Cleave is the abstract for the concept of the fighter controlling the battle (All right, I'm in position. If I drop this guy, I'll get a shot at that guy).

The concept is taught in many combat styles that deal with multiple opponents.

 

[R-Hero]

you could also argue that Cleave is the abstract for the concept of the fighter controlling the battle (All right, I'm in position. If I drop this guy, I'll get a shot at that guy).

The concept is taught in many combat styles that deal with multiple opponents.

I still think that cleave in this instance falls under full attack action. The natural ebb and flow of combat. An A of O is a quick opening that falls anywhere within combat because of the opponents lack of defense or focus.

Wizard Aay mucking around with a spell does not make Fighter Zee behind shield and slashing sword any more smackable. (My past english teachers are rolling in their graves for that sentance structure.)

I look at it as Strength vs Dexterity, Feats vs combat actions. Never the twain shall meet. I.M.O. (Did I quote that right?) They be too different from each others. (Take that undead-schoolmarm!)

Whatever house rule any game uses, it should be FUN for all. Its a game.

 

[KarinsDad]

Fair? why would it not be fair? not fair to who?

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


Example:

My 15th level mage uses Monster Summoning I to summon a wimpy little creature.

He orders it to move past the party 15th level Fighter.

This is a group tactic. The Fighter does an AoO on the wimpy creature and kills it. He then Cleaves his 15th level opponent.

The overall result is magnitudes greater than just casting a Monster Summons I and using the creature to attack the enemy.


Or worse yet, the mage uses Monster Summoning III or higher to summon multiple first level creatures.

The Fighter (with Combat Reflexes) AoOs each of them and uses Great Cleave to whale on his opponent.


The tactic is nonsensical from a real world combat point of view.

The only reason we are discussing it is because of the game mechanics way in with Cleave was implemented.

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".

 

[Storyteller01]

I still think that cleave in this instance falls under full attack action. The natural ebb and flow of combat. An A of O is a quick opening that falls anywhere within combat because of the opponents lack of defense or focus.

I look at it as Strength vs Dexterity, Feats vs combat actions. Never the twain shall meet. I.M.O. (Did I quote that right?) They be too different from each others. (Take that undead-schoolmarm!)

If you want to get picky, Dex can actually add to strength (even boxers are told to relax, to gain precision and power.) Strong Arming actually has a lesser effect, especially if the other guy is stronger than you (someone always is...)

Also remember that ALL true combat strikes are taking advantage of an opening. Your not going to pound away without placing your shots (not unless you like to lose). The best times to attack are during your opponents attack, when they are most open and vulnerable. By this account, nearly every attack is an AoO, and Cleave is allowed.

even if you don't use that example, just think about real mass combat. When your fighting, you can (and do) get hit. No reason as to why or how, if so and so did this or that. Seemingly innocent or unrelated events conspired against you. You get hit and you are or are not dead. Fairness has little to do with it...

Sorry if I'm highjacking the thread folks.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Wow. Now I remember why I never come in this forum any more. Sheesh! Good place to come up with people to add to my "Ignore" list, though.

Clearly, nothing in the AoO or the Cleave rules disallows them being used together. I see no case that can be made *from the rules* that they can't work together.

Oh, wait. Yes I do! It's the old Rule 0. You don't like something, you change it for your campaign. As long as everyone in your gaming group is cool with it, you're right! If they're not all okay with it, you're wrong. And what a bunch of... darling people... on the internet think about it doesn't enter into it.

You don't want to use the two together, fine. Don't. But y'all who are saying that the you can't Cleave out of an AoO are going by your preference, rather than the rules.

 

[Scion]

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

He can deal. It is the benefit of the other guy, not a penalty to the original.

Unless of course his penalty is the need for better allies. Choose your friends wisely.

As for your summon example the problem is with who is an enemy and such.

But still, your great abuse effectively works as a specialized tactic and requires quite a bit of resources and planning and hope that the opponent cannot also take advantage of it.

Take a spellcaster who gives up their full round to use a spell in hopes that the fighter type who has spent some feats can get some extra use out of them.

I see no problem here, group tactics and not exactly incredible ones either, there are still better options that dont require as many resources to pull off.

Have a good one.