Cleaving after an AoO

[Geron Raveneye]

Sorry, but reading through your posts, this strikes me as a little odd, because when I combine this post here...

Sorry, you are totally incorrect here.

I am the player of the Fighter.

I decide who is my enemy. The game system does not decide. The DM does not decide. My fellow players do not decide.

I do.

My fellow PC party members could become my enemies at a moments notice if I decide that.

If a DM ruled that I could not AoO the summoned mooks running past me because they are not my enemy, I would politely explain that he does not decide who my enemies are, I do.

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.

I am the only one who decides the thoughts, opinions, and attempted actions of my PC (unless magic is involved or something). It is my PC, not anyone else's.

...where you basically say that nobody except you decides who your enemies are, and that the DM doesn't have any say in it...

...with this post here...

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.

...where you get a little confusing about who actually determines who your enemy is, but basically say that the DM as well as you decide who your enemies are...

...I get a headache

Basically, and I'm sorry to have to point that out to you, who your enemy is and who isn't is still up to the DM. If you don't like that fact, you can of course pack your fighter and take him to another game, or simply open up your own game, where you can define what makes an enemy. In all those Summon Monster examples people bring up to vilify that combo, every DM with a little common sense and the ability not to let himself get flattened by an overactive rules-lawyer with a sense for hairsplitting will rule the creatures that the wizard summoned to attack the fighter's opponent as allies, as long as the wizard does not command them to attack the fighter instead, and as such won't allow an attack of opportunity on them. An AoO was inserted to give a combatant an edge when an opposing combatant lets down his guard, not to adjudicate attacks on allied or indifferent bystanders.

As for how "fair" or "unfair" the use of a feat is in a given situation is of course subject to group taste and style, and should be discussed individually. Nothing world-shattering there, right?

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Precisely.

If I have a spell that affects "MY enemies", it should affect anyone I consider an enemy.

Just because someone consider me to be "HIS enemy" does not mean that I consider him to be my enemy. Hence, my enemy spell should not affect him if I do not consider him to be an enemy (as per my corrected post) simply because it is my spell based on my enemies, not his spell based on his enemies.

I could consider him an ally and my ally spell would help him. He could consider me an enemy and his enemy spell would harm me (assuming failed save or whatever). But until I consider him an enemy, he is not, regardless of how he feels towards me.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If AoO + Cleave is not broken only if you use a metagame definition of enemy/ally, then AoO + Cleave is indeed broken.

Surely the character should decide whom he attacks and threatens.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If AoO + Cleave is not broken only if you use a metagame definition of enemy/ally, then AoO + Cleave is indeed broken.

Surely the character should decide whom he attacks and threatens.

They are not "not broken only if", but because the in-game definition of certain concepts is used to explain them, and those definitions are used because they were used to build the rules we're discussing about here. If you want to discuss a rule based on defined terms, you should use the terms as they were defined to build the rule. If you discuss outside of those definitions, the rule as written might already be useless.

If you want a discussion based on the common understanding of enemies and allies, then allow me as DM to ask a fighter who out of the blue attacks the creatures that were summoned by the wizard, who presumably is his ally, to help said figher to overcome an enemy, what reason he has to view those creatures as his enemies? If there's any good reason beside the "I want to get an AoO so I can cleave the big bad guy out of initiative turn", I might even let it stand? We're talking roleplaying here, not 100% strict tabletop gaming.
The tactic to use an AoO on one of those creatures to follow it up with a Cleave on the "real" enemy stems from nothing but metagame thinking, and only is served here to show how a pretty normal combo can be abused. As with everything, abuse only happens if the DM allows it to happen.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Precisely.

If I have a spell that affects "MY enemies", it should affect anyone I consider an enemy.

Just because someone consider me to be "HIS enemy" does not mean that I consider him to be my enemy. Hence, my enemy spell should not affect him if I do not consider him to be an enemy (as per my corrected post) simply because it is my spell based on my enemies, not his spell based on his enemies.

I could consider him an ally and my ally spell would help him. He could consider me an enemy and his enemy spell would harm me (assuming failed save or whatever). But until I consider him an enemy, he is not, regardless of how he feels towards me.

I just want to add here that a comparison with a magic spell is only of limited value in context with an attack of opportunity on an enemy. After all, with a spell, you could always claim that it might be the spell that considers somebody your enemy, or your ally, and that the magic of the spell doesn't care about what the caster is thinking about somebody specific.

 

[KarinsDad]

I just want to add here that a comparison with a magic spell is only of limited value in context with an attack of opportunity on an enemy. After all, with a spell, you could always claim that it might be the spell that considers somebody your enemy, or your ally, and that the magic of the spell doesn't care about what the caster is thinking about somebody specific.

You could claim that, but it is real nebulous to do so.

The book states that an enemy is someone unfriendly to you.
The book states that someone unfriendly to you is someone who wishes you ill.

A zombie might be your enemy. But, it does not wish you ill. It does not think about you at all. It does not think. It merely does what it was instructed to do. And the PC or NPC that instructed it might not wish you ill. (S)He might just wanted to protect an area.

So, claiming that the spell "considers somebody your enemy, or your ally" opens up a can of worms with regard to adjudication. Spells suddenly become somewhat omnipotent (and that omnipotence becomes impossible to defend against) with regard to who is friend and who is foe.

Claiming that the caster of the spell makes that determination does not open up that can of worms. The caster decides. Period.

Hence, it is totally applicable to the AoO question with regards to who is friend and who is foe.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you want a discussion based on the common understanding of enemies and allies, then allow me as DM to ask a fighter who out of the blue attacks the creatures that were summoned by the wizard, who presumably is his ally, to help said figher to overcome an enemy, what reason he has to view those creatures as his enemies? If there's any good reason beside the "I want to get an AoO so I can cleave the big bad guy out of initiative turn", I might even let it stand? We're talking roleplaying here, not 100% strict tabletop gaming.
The tactic to use an AoO on one of those creatures to follow it up with a Cleave on the "real" enemy stems from nothing but metagame thinking, and only is served here to show how a pretty normal combo can be abused. As with everything, abuse only happens if the DM allows it to happen.

You could take this point of view. But realize that when you do so, you are being a bit of a hypocrit (not intended for you personally or in a bad way, just an observation).

When players design their characters, they are almost always using metagame thinking. A 13 means that you can acquire feats that require 13, otherwise, 12 is better, etc.

When players play their characters, they are almost always using metagame thinking. My 14 hit, so I will up my Power Attack by 2 and see if it hits. That is NOT "in character" thinking, that is game mechanics thinking.

Hence, preventing metagame thinking is a very subjective thing. As DM, you really cannot do it completely or even a lot. Nor should you even try. Instead, prevent the abuse by modifying the rule (e.g. Cleaves only work on the characters turn).


My answer to your question as DM is "It is irrelevant. I consider them my enemy both because I want to and because the Wizard and I have set up this tactic that according to the rules should work".

My "in character" response "Because I can sweep my weapon through them and take my main opponent by surprise.".

The second answer here is mostly a smokescreen and basically nonsensical, but as DM, do you allow it or not? That is dependent on whether you see the tactic as abuse or not, not really whether you see this as metagaming or not. Metagaming occurs like spades in most games, regardless of any protests to the contrary.

 

[atom crash]

I disagree completely with the assumption that an AoO represents someone "messing up." The AoO is a tactical decision. Sometimes it is worth the risk to allow your opponent the AoO, in order for you to gain something as well. Sometimes, I'd rather take the AoO to drink a potion and still be able to threaten my opponent, rather than take a 5' step and drink safely but allow them to freely leave their position, because next round I intend to full attack them.

But I feel that turning that risk I freely take upon myself into a chance to harm my comrades is a low and sneaky tactic. Like paying someone the ransom for the safe return of a loved one only to have them harm your loved one anyway.

Play it how you like it.

If it took such in-depth dissection of game terms in order to play Monopoly or Solitaire, I bet only 4 people play those games.

Anyway, let's face it, we here users of this board apparently attempt to figure out what the rules say and mean waaaaay more than the game's designers. Did they really attempt to write dissertations on the definition of game terms like "ally" and "enemy?" I doubt it. If they did, we might have clearer rules. Or we might have more convoluted rules that only a lawyer could decipher.

The rules of the game require some basic assumptions, and that always requires interpretation. And I've chosen that my game doesn't include the combo of AoO+Cleave. Why? For the same reason that in chess you're not allowed to slip up and place yourself in check. My players are in complete agreement with my interpretation. If I have to implement a *gasp* house rule, then so be it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Precisely.

If I have a spell that affects "MY enemies", it should affect anyone I consider an enemy.

I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

You cannot declare someone to be your enemy. You can only declare that you are their enemy.

Just like you cannot decide that someone is your friend, only that you are theirs.

-Hyp.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You could claim that, but it is real nebulous to do so.

The book states that an enemy is someone unfriendly to you.
The book states that someone unfriendly to you is someone who wishes you ill.

A zombie might be your enemy. But, it does not wish you ill. It does not think about you at all. It does not think. It merely does what it was instructed to do. And the PC or NPC that instructed it might not wish you ill. (S)He might just wanted to protect an area.

So, claiming that the spell "considers somebody your enemy, or your ally" opens up a can of worms with regard to adjudication. Spells suddenly become somewhat omnipotent (and that omnipotence becomes impossible to defend against) with regard to who is friend and who is foe.

Claiming that the caster of the spell makes that determination does not open up that can of worms. The caster decides. Period.

Hence, it is totally applicable to the AoO question with regards to who is friend and who is foe.

There isn't really a can of worms with this spell effect, as it's up to the DM to decide who actually wishes you ill, actively or just in case that they notice you, or if that ill-wish is part of their order they are bound to fulfill...which is actually how the spell effect works, too, as no cleric stands in a circle of opponents declaring who should be affected by his Bane and who not. He prays, and it works on everybody who harbors the will to threaten and harm him.