Cleaving after an AoO

[Storyteller01]

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.

Got to agree here. You can only control you intentions, not those of others. Your thinking that someone is an enemy does not mean that they mean you harm (heck, they could be an enemy because YOU mean to do them harm.) The DM (and the gods who power those bane spells ) are the only ones who can say who is an is not your true enemy.

 

[Storyteller01]

All these arguments are irrelevant to D&D, because D&D has no concept of "cover his flank" in the way that you mean. In D&D terms covering a flank would mean a bonus to AC for standing near an ally.

It could also mean having an ally beside you, making sure one side is occupied. Occupied space=one less area available for flanking. May not provide an AC bonus, but is tactically sound (unless you run into a fighter with Cleave )

 

[R-Hero]

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. QUOTE]

Wow, this thread is still running??

The rule for Cleave states if you deal a creature enough damage to drop it below 0 hps, you get an extra melee attack..etc.etc.

Attack of Opportunity says a single extra melee attack per round when opponent takes action that provokes attacks....

Set in stone, one rule says yes, (cleave = extra attack)
the other says no (A of O = single attack)

Also somewhere in these books is a paragraph about the books being a guideline, not commandments or direct orders.

Let it go, people. This is why I have a pile of books that say 3.0 and my friends books say 3.5.

 

[Storyteller01]

I CAN"T (debate genes kicking in...) MUST...ARGUE...MOOORRREEEE!!!!

 

[R-Hero]

I CAN"T (debate genes kicking in...) MUST...ARGUE...MOOORRREEEE!!!!

If you are having fun, keep chasin' your tail devildog. This circular logic will never die.

There are good arguments on both sides. There is no right answer. (Untill Core Rulebook 1 version 4.0 comes out, anyway!)

I can play it either way and not loose any sleep. (As long as the enemy/opponent/DM does the same)

 

[Storyteller01]

If you are having fun, keep chasin' your tail devildog.

More interested in the arguement than the result I like to see who says what.


Devil dog, huh? You in the Marines R-Hero?

I had been in 1st bat/ 3rd Mar. MOS 0341. Saw no action though [mixed emotions on that].

 

[KarinsDad]

But again, Bane is an area spell - it affects creatures that fit the description even if the caster is not aware of them.

This is true according to the rules of the book.

But, this is not true solely according to the description of the Bane spell. Only when you add the concept that "enemies are ones that are unfriendly to you" does this apply.


Btw, according to a LITERAL reading of the Bane spell, the enemy description, and the unfriendly description, Bane does not affect "opponent zombies". Why?

Because Bane affects enemies.
Enemies are unfriendlies.
Unfriendlies wish you ill.
Zombies cannot think, hence, zombies cannot wish you ill, hence, zombies are not enemies.

Now, I do not know of a DM who would rule literally like this, but that IS the literal rule.


Also, you are USED to Bane working this way, so you might have a harder time agreeing that Bane NOT working that way is ok as well. We tend to be more comfortable with what we are used to and new concepts are quickly rejected because of that, not because of the merit of the new concept.

This is illustrated here by the fact that you are very resistant to the concept of me picking my own enemies. However, this is a natural thing for people to do, just not the definition of enemy in DND. Like I said early, both is correct conceptually and I think this is just a poor decision in the DND system. I pick my enemies. My enemies pick themselves. Both, not just one.


As for who is an enemy, I was going to suggest the following yesterday:

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

This is a model of either definition of enemy taking precedence over a definition of ally. In other words, if I think you are my enemy or you think I am your enemy, then you are my enemy (for purposes of spells, etc.). The only time you are my ally is if both of us think you are my ally. This is more complex, but it allows for the Bane spell to affect anyone I want it to AND anyone who really wishes me harm. The reason AI and IA are not allies is because an Ally spell should not be intrusive like an enemy spell is (although Aiding a neutral character is intrusive, so I could also see a case for AI - A, IA - A).

So with this, enemies is "either case true". Allies is "both cases true".

I doubt many DMs would go with this though.


Btw, I'd like your careful consideration of the following scenario.

NPC A is PC B's brother. NPC A likes PC B, but PC B hates NPC A because NPC A is an assassin.

NPC A is hired to kill PC C who is a friend of PC B.

PC B casts the Bane spell. Does it affect NPC A who is at the moment, trying to kill PC C?


According to the literal book, it does not. NPC A is not unfriendly to PC B, in fact he likes him because he is his brother. So, NPC A is not the enemy of PC B. PC B's feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Is this how you rule as a GM?

 

[Storyteller01]

This is true according to the rules of the book.

But, this is not true solely according to the description of the Bane spell. Only when you add the concept that "enemies are ones that are unfriendly to you" does this apply.


Btw, according to a LITERAL reading of the Bane spell, the enemy description, and the unfriendly description, Bane does not affect "opponent zombies". Why?

Because Bane affects enemies.
Enemies are unfriendlies.
Unfriendlies wish you ill.
Zombies cannot think, hence, zombies cannot wish you ill, hence, zombies are not enemies.

Now, I do not know of a DM who would rule literally like this, but that IS the literal rule.


Also, you are USED to Bane working this way, so you might have a harder time agreeing that Bane NOT working that way is ok as well. We tend to be more comfortable with what we are used to and new concepts are quickly rejected because of that, not because of the merit of the new concept.

This is illustrated here by the fact that you are very resistant to the concept of me picking my own enemies. However, this is a natural thing for people to do, just not the definition of enemy in DND. Like I said early, both is correct conceptually and I think this is just a poor decision in the DND system. I pick my enemies. My enemies pick themselves. Both, not just one.


As for who is an enemy, I was going to suggest the following yesterday:

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

This is a model of either definition of enemy taking precedence over a definition of ally. In other words, if I think you are my enemy or you think I am your enemy, then you are my enemy (for purposes of spells, etc.). The only time you are my ally is if both of us think you are my ally. This is more complex, but it allows for the Bane spell to affect anyone I want it to AND anyone who really wishes me harm. The reason AI and IA are not allies is because an Ally spell should not be intrusive like an enemy spell is (although Aiding a neutral character is intrusive, so I could also see a case for AI - A, IA - A).

So with this, enemies is "either case true". Allies is "both cases true".

I doubt many DMs would go with this though.


Btw, I'd like your careful consideration of the following scenario.

NPC A is PC B's brother. NPC A likes PC B, but PC B hates NPC A because NPC A is an assassin.

NPC A is hired to kill PC C who is a friend of PC B.

PC B casts the Bane spell. Does it affect NPC A who is at the moment, trying to kill PC C?


According to the literal book, it does not. NPC A is not unfriendly to PC B, in fact he likes him because he is his brother. So, NPC A is not the enemy of PC B. PC B's feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Is this how you rule as a GM?

Seems incredibly complicated, on par to a Civil War scale dilemma..

I thought we were discussing cleaving on an AoO??

 

[Abraxas]

But the given example implied the deliberate summons by a friendly mage. Using summoned creatures to provide deliberate targets for an AoO seems like metagaming, especially if other creative options can be used (thinking beyond the numeberS)

Choosing to use any feat could be seen as meta gaming - The character knows exactly what his abilities do in the game world. How is developing a useful strategy based on those abilities somehow unacceptable meta gaming compared to things like having your character jump off a 100 foot cliff because you know it won't kill him unless you suffer 50 or more points damage and fail a massive damage save? (I don't think jumping off the cliff is unacceptable - its part of the game world). My opposition to the AoO/Cleave bit has nothing to do with metagaming either.

I would still question why a BBEG is summoning uncontrollable creatures so close to himself, knowing the disadvantage. It's similar to calling a pack of wolves or hunting dogs to fight, then getting caught in the mob. Then I can see a fighter gaining an advantage, if he trained for mass combat. The problem here would be the DM, and hopefully they learned from it.

But it wouldn't be a disadvantage to the BBEG. He summons them to a point behind himself and as they move past him he AoOs them before our stalwart fighter ally gets a shot at them and uses his great cleave feat to smack the fighter, immediately after which he gets his full attack action.

So why summon them if this is the case? Either a player is using D&D logic to gain an advantage, or the BBEG is making a big mistake. The problem still is not the mechanic, but whether it's metagaming or a huge error in judgement, especially if the BBEG knew the fighter can Cleave.

So no one summons creatures unless they have one hundred percent control over them? They still serve a purpose - attack the BBEG. The fact that the summoned creatures behavior is completely predictable (if not controllable) is a fact of the spell, something the caster would definitely know. The fact that this presents a useful strategy isn't (and shouldn't be) beyond the comprehension of the caster. As shown above - the BBEG is going to kill his own summoned creature before our fighter ally gets a shot at them.

Not if the idea is to sacrifice them for a loophole. A better option (IMHO) would be to ajudicate some AC penalty due to the distraction, similar to the swarm effect.

Except that your AC penalty is a more complicated house rule that will have greater repercussions. What type of creatures can cause this AC penalty? What happens when the party gangs up on a lone opponent? Do they cause an AC penalty because of the distraction? etc, etc. No AoO/Cleave is a simpler solution.

Again, this is the intent of the player. Are you using tactics, or using a loophole (hitting friendlies gives an AoO). Even if they don't get close, that's one action that doesn't focus on the players.

From a character perspective its definitely using tactics - the characters don't know its a loophole, they just know this is how things work. As for actions that aren't focused on the players, well most players avoid taking AoOs like the plague, so those actions aren't focused on the players anyways.

Again, this goes to the intent of the caster. Are you using the creatures as an attack, or to gain some nonsensical advantage (see the police dog example above). Aid in attacking is one thing, but bending D&D rules for an easily negated advantage in the long run (if a DM sees abuse, they plan to negate it ahead of time)is some thing else.

In game terms it isn't a nonsensical advantage and could definitely be a sound tactic. As for your real world examples - well they're just silly. Your police officer isn't going to attack the k-9 cause 1) he doesn't have cleave, not to mention 2)probably can't drop it with one shot, 3)it probably has a better chance of incapacitating the mugger than he does and 4)doesn't just go poof because it isn't really dead. The same with your riot police - they aren't going to off a fellow officer. Actually this is the only thing that isn't silly - the fighter isn't going to off another PC cause that has real consequences - if he drops his ally he actually kills him. Summoned creatures aren't really killed - they're just gone.

Agreed. If you think outside the box (outside or around D&D rules), you have plenty of advantages. Use the terrain, pay attention to the details. I can't give anything else without knowing all the details of the conflict, but using a numbers game could not have been the only option.

Using this tactic is thinking outside the box - what are you trying to say here?

Again, this can be considered metagaming. Can you gain AoO for friendlies? If so, what does this say about the players? What consequenses are there for these actions? And saying that higher powers do not care for their subjects is not a valid arguement. It would be the same as kingdoms on earth. Some kings do, some kings don't. DM adjuicates what fits.

It doesn't say anything about the players other than they have figured out a tactic that may or may not be useful. Unless you are going to dictate consequences for every condition under which creatures are summoned then there are going to be none. Are you going to have your higher ups whip the players for using summoned creatures to trigger traps? How about fighting creatures they have no chance of defeating? The summon Monster spells summon cannon fodder, thats it - they willingly throw themselves to their death for you with absolutely no regard for themselves. How that death occurs doesn't enter into the equation. Hell, if your fighter ally is a psychotic nut that likes fighting and has you summon critters to attack him so he can get in some between adventure practice I'm fine with that. He doesn't actually kill them and they are doing exactly what the spell summons them for.

You know what though? None of this really matters.
As I said before I don't think an advantage obtained because one opponent let his guard down should be available against one who didn't. Its that simple. None of the commentary above changes that in any way.

Oh, and I would have had a bunch of smileys throughout this post but none of the drop down menus work anymore in the window where I compose my posts - if anyone has an idea why this is I would really like to know.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Btw, according to a LITERAL reading of the Bane spell, the enemy description, and the unfriendly description, Bane does not affect "opponent zombies". Why?

Because Bane affects enemies.
Enemies are unfriendlies.
Unfriendlies wish you ill.
Zombies cannot think, hence, zombies cannot wish you ill, hence, zombies are not enemies.

Now, I do not know of a DM who would rule literally like this, but that IS the literal rule.

I absolutely rule that Bane doesn't affect zombies.

They're immune to mind-affecting spells.

-Hyp.