Cleaving after an AoO

[Hypersmurf]

I decide who is my enemy.

What if you're a Cleric casting Bane?

It's an area effect spell - you could cast it while blind, and it would have no effect on who is affected (unlike a targeted spell, where you must see or touch and select who is affected).

But it affects all enemies in the area.

If the gnoll who killed your father in front of your eyes is present in the area, but invisible - and you don't know he's there - is he affected?

If the elf who killed your mother - so secretly that nobody ever knew about his obsession with wiping your family off the face of the earth - is present in the area, smiling politely while, unbeknowst to you, he gets ready to stab you in the back... is he affected?

Can you also decide who is an 'opponent' and who is not?

If you're a druid summoning a Dire Boar, it will immediately attack your opponents to the best of its ability. You can only direct it to attack (or not) particular enemies if you can communicate with it... and in this example, you haven't cast Speak With Animals.

If you want it to avoid the goblin bodyguards and go straight for the hobgoblin adept, can you just decide that the goblins are not opponents, but the adept is? Since the boar automatically attacks your opponents, does this mean it will go straight for the hobgoblin, even though the goblins are closer?

Or is 'opponent' something you can't decide, the way 'enemy' is?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Cleave works less and less as levels increase (creatures tend to take more and more hits to take down and have other evasive abilities along with needing to be within range of someone else to attack, not always easy) this is just a minor ability which hardly ever happens, but even when it does all it means is that this feat still grants some sort of a benefit. It is a sad day when people try to hinder a feat that already loses power so rapidly

Before you said that AoO Cleave is rare.

Now you are saying that AoO Cleave becomes even rarer as you go up levels.

So, how does taking a minor rare element out of the game in order to prevent some abusive tactics hinder the feat if the AoO Cleave combination with it is so rare (and becomes rarer)?

You keep avoiding that question.

Cleave is a strange feat, it is one of the few that work better for pcs than npcs. Still though, I havent seen many people take it, it is just too situational.

I think your campaigns are different than ours.

Nearly every melee fighter (barbarian, etc.) in our games has taken Cleave. Virtually every one (in fact, I cannot think of one who has not). Non-melee fighter (e.g. bowmen), sure. They do not take it. But melee fighters almost always take it (at least in our games).

At low level, about one successful attack in two will result in it occuring. This typically happens every three to four rounds.

At high level, that drops to about one successful attack in six (and even more often if the spell casters soften up the opposition first), but even so, that is often an extra attack every two to four rounds (if you consider full round attacks once fighters get into range). In fact, it tends to happen more at higher level than lower level due to more versatility of party tactics (more options, more opportunities which offsets somewhat the greater number of hit points for enemies).

And, fighters go out of their way to get it to work. I have often seen them attack the wounded guy first, even if he has a higher AC, just to get the chance to get in the extra free attack.

I think you must not have actually seen Cleave / Great Cleave in action. The practice really does not match the theory.

It is extremely useful, even at high level.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And, fighters go out of their way to get it to work. I have often seen them attack the wounded guy first, even if he has a higher AC, just to get the chance to get in the extra free attack.

Attacking the wounded guy is standard D&D combat tactics, even without Cleave.

Given that two opponents on 5% hit points can still deal twice as much damage per round as one opponent on 100% hit points, it's almost always a good idea to take out one opponent fast, rather than spreading your attacks to whittle down two at once...

-Hyp.

 

[nhl_1997]

If he did not change his ruling and continued to push such blatant stupidity into my face, I would leave the game. It is as simple as that.

This was my point, or at least it was my (poorly phrased) point. The second example is a ridiculous interprutation of "by-the-book" interprutation of the rules. (The third example was simply pointing out how realistic interprutations can also be ridiculous.) As such (my first point), players and GMs should instead go with the spirit of the rules, whatever their interprutations may be.

My personal opinion is that aoo+cleave is okay. The creature who provoked the aoo in the first place should have realized the potential disasterous results. However, using the party's own summoned critters to setup these additional attacks breaks the spirit of the rules (my opinion.) Thus, I would not allow an aoo against a party summoned critter plus cleave against the real enemy.

Other people think that it's a ridiculous interprutation of the rules to use cleave off of an aoo. Other people think it's okay for the following, reasonable scenario:

level 7 party
encounter a flesh golem
only the fighter has an adamantine weapon
the wizard has no spells with entry Spell Resistance: No
the fighter has the cleave feat

What should the wizard do? Summoning small critters so that the party fighter can get extra attacks against the golem seems like an excellent choice.


It's up to each group to decide how to adjucate aoo+cleave since by-the-book interprutation can lead to completely ridiculous interprutations.

 

[KarinsDad]

What if you're a Cleric casting Bane?

It's an area effect spell - you could cast it while blind, and it would have no effect on who is affected (unlike a targeted spell, where you must see or touch and select who is affected).

But it affects all enemies in the area.

If the gnoll who killed your father in front of your eyes is present in the area, but invisible - and you don't know he's there - is he affected?

If the elf who killed your mother - so secretly that nobody ever knew about his obsession with wiping your family off the face of the earth - is present in the area, smiling politely while, unbeknowst to you, he gets ready to stab you in the back... is he affected?

Simple.

Enemy is listed in the PHB as "a creature unfriendly to you".

1) It does not state "a creature hostile to you". This does not mean that hostile creatures are not considered enemies though. No DM would take this enemy definition (i.e. unfriendly) literally.

2) What if you are invisible in your example and the "enemies" do not know you are there? They cannot be "unfriendly to you" if they do not know you are there or even know that you exist at all, can they? I do not know of any DM who would say that the Bane spell of the invisible cleric would not affect the nearby Orcs though.

So, you have to adjudicate this with common sense. An enemy is anyone who is unfriendly (or worse) to you or that you are unfriendly to (or worse). Otherwise, it becomes an adjudication nightmare.

"What do you mean that my spell will not affect the enemy I want it to because he is thinking about flowers instead of murder?"

I decide who I have ill will towards (i.e. who I want my enemies to be). Other characters (PC or NPC) decide if they want to have ill will towards me (i.e. who their enemies are).

I do not control the NPCs, the DM does. So, he decides which of those are my enemies because they are unfriendly to me. I decide which of those are my enemies becaues I am unfriendly to them.

Like I said, simple.

 

[KarinsDad]

Attacking the wounded guy is standard D&D combat tactics, even without Cleave.

Given that two opponents on 5% hit points can still deal twice as much damage per round as one opponent on 100% hit points, it's almost always a good idea to take out one opponent fast, rather than spreading your attacks to whittle down two at once...

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

I have seen them attack a powerful heavily wounded guy (possibly more resistant to their attacks, possibly with a higher AC, etc.) before attacking weaker non-wounded or slightly wounded guys.

Without Cleave, it is sometimes quicker and easier to take out the cannon fodder to reduce numbers (reduce enemy flank, reduce enemy tactics, reduce enemy attacks per round, etc.). In fact, the non-melee PCs (in our groups) often do this anyway.

But if you have Cleave and cannot take out the cannon fodder with a single attack and there is a slim chance that you can do that against the harder to hit guy (especially if you have multiple attacks at higher level and hence multiple opportunities), sometimes they still attempt the harder to hit guy BECAUSE they have Cleave (and might still get an extra attack against the cannon fodder).

If you have a 40% chance to hit and Cleave, a successful killing of an opponent averages 40% more (average hit) damage in the round (if you have other opponents around you) than not doing so.

Without Cleave, there is sometimes less of an incentive to take out the big bad wounded guy and more of an incentive to take out that pesky flanker cannon fodder. This is especially true if the big bad guy is really hard to hit.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Like I said, simple.

And 'ally'?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

And 'ally'?

-Hyp.

I stand corrected:

There are only 9 basic possibilities (including indifferents):

A - ally
I - indifferent
E - enemy

AA AI AE IA II IE EA EI EE

AA and EE are easy. If someone is friendly to you and you are friendly to them, then they are an ally. If someone is unfriendly to you and you are unfriendly to them, they are an enemy.

The other seven cases are less clear, but you have to come up with some consistent ruling.

The system as implied by the book is (first column other character, second column my character):

AA - A
AI - A
AE - A
IA - N
II - N
IE - N
EA - E
EI - E
EE - E

A more reasonable definition is what you consider to be true:

AA - A
AI - N
AE - E
IA - A
II - N
IE - E
EA - A
EI - N
EE - E

The former solution here is way off (even though it is implied by the book and might be considered "the rule") because someone I consider an enemy should not get assisted by my Ally spell (the AE case) and someone I consider an ally should not get harmed by my Enemy spell (the AE case). My attitude towards them should take precedence than their attitude towards me (since it is my enemy or ally spell). The spells should not be omnipotent and impossible to defend against (with regard to that omnipotence). Plus, what if it is not a spell and some other form or attack or assistance? The book doesn't make sense in that case.

The latter solution here is more reasonable and often easy to adjudicate as well. Anyone I think is my enemy is my enemy (at least in my mind). Anyone I think is my ally is my ally (at least in my mind). But, it is DM dependent on whether it handles the weird blind cleric casting Bane case (if I cannot see them or perceive that they are there, can I really harm or help them?).

 

[Scion]

Before you said that AoO Cleave is rare.

And it is, glad you can see that. Why take away something that merely adds a bit more useability to a feat that loses power more and more as levels increase, that is overly harsh. Taking away things that are fine balance wise just because some find it hard to deal with cleave is bad play. Very unfortunate.

You keep avoiding that question.

just as soon as you ask a useful/relevant question it will be easier to put an answer to.

Nearly every melee fighter (barbarian, etc.) in our games has taken Cleave.

That is their own problem. At lower levels it can indeed be useful, but as levels increase it will become less and less so for a variety of reasons (strangely I have already gone over many of these in this very thread). When it is first taken it can increase the amount of attacks one gets by a pretty good number and the ratio of normal attacks to it is pretty good. At higher levels this ratio turns into a very bad one indeed. Still useful now and then, but worth a feat? Hard to say, not all feats keep up at every level. Toughness is great very early on, as is cleave, they both lose out later though.

Which is more useful: cleave or improved trip? Depends on the character sure, but in overall general usefulness improved trip is simply hands down better. One can plan for it, it is useful in a variety of situations, and it doesnt really lose much as time goes on.

Pretty much the same can be said for nearly every other combat feat out there, especially with higher order feat chains which require other feats to get into, if you need to spend 4 feats to get somewhere chances are good you wont be dropping another feat on this guy unless there is a really good reason to do so.

::shrugs:: but we've been over this. There isnt any overpowering balance issue. It is allowable by the raw. It can be very cinematic and interesting. Not everyone will feel so of course, but that is the nature of the game.

If there is a way it is overpowered then someone should say it, but it seems most agree that it is not.

So, without any overpoweredness, and the ability to explain it cinematically (which most anyone should be able to do), I see no reason to take away from a feat that loses out so much later on anyway. In fact it seems pretty silly to limit even further an already pretty limited feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My attitude towards them should take precedence than their attitude towards me (since it is my enemy or ally spell).

But surely you can only decide whether or not you are Bob's friend; you have no control over whether or not he is yours...?

-Hyp.