Cleaving after an AoO

[R-Hero]

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

8 years U.S. Army, but every where I went, I couldn't get away from either ex or active duty Marines.

Each unit I was assigned to had at least 1 ex-Marine
One of earliest training assignments was at Little Creek Naval Amphibious base in Virginia. (Salors, Soliders and Marines.)
Several overseas assignments, including an extended stay at Gitmo, Cuba.

...and one of my favorite actors is R. Lee Ermy.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Every DM I've ever had in my 16 years of gaming would laugh in the party's face if we tried to pull some BS like summoning in monsters for the sole purpose of giving the tank extra attacks. I mean seriously, do people really play like this? Absurd, immature, and so completely broken it makes me wonder why anyone who does so even plays the game. Go play video games if you want cheat codes and glitches.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

no not summoning monsters for AoO/cleaves in a world that this is possible is absurd. If my friend is backed into a corner down to 1hp and desides to try and drink a potion gets hit by an AoO drops and I get hit by the cleave I'd think to myself geez with my combat reflexes and great cleave I can use this. And if I wasn't allowed to work it to my advantage like this I would be pissed when it worked against me in the "honest" AoO/cleave situation. Either it works or it doesn't. If it works I will develp ways to use it to the best of my advantage. My characters generally aren't morons and if that is how the world works they deal with it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is if the arguement is realism.

Using real world examples, a police officer is fighting some mugger. Other officers from a K-9 unit sends in the dogs. Does the first officer attack friendly dogs to gain an AoO advantage?

First of all, since when is D&D supposed to be realistic?

Second of all, if realism is an important criterion to you, it is easy enough to set up examples where AoO + Cleave causes extremely bizarre and totally unbelieveable results. e.g. two targets, completely unaware of each other, standing standing 25' away from each other.

Thirdly, if you expand your list of what is an "attack", yes, allies might well attack each other. I am thinking shoves and grapples, not sword or club swings, but the point is still valid. BTW, American football used to allow such tactics about a hundred years ago but they were outlawed because they were both too effective and resulted in too many injuries. The fact that D&D is sword-centric and does not bother to model the subtleties of grappling is a (purposefully designed) failing of D&D.

 

[KarinsDad]

I absolutely rule that Bane doesn't affect zombies.

They're immune to mind-affecting spells.

-Hyp.

Good point.

However, you avoided my real question:


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?


Bane is a unique spell in the core rules. It is the only one with "enemies" specified not as part of flavor text, but as part of the rules. There are other spells that discuss enemies as flavor text, but they tend to then talk about foes or opponents in the rules text.


So, I am not sure you can actually justify spell rules off the Bane spell too much.

 

[strongbow]

OT here but since some people mentioned "I don't like people getting penalizaed from another character's actions.", I had to speak up.

Consider that Mage Slayer does not just let you take an AoO if someone casts defensively, thus benefitting only the person that takes the feat, but that it prevents a caster from casting defensively at at all. Thus, the feat tacitly benefits all of the Mage Slayer's allies who threaten the enemy caster. A good example of legal by the rules, but a bad idea. (Even beyond the other problems with Mage Slayer)

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, NPC A is not the enemy of PC B.

Isn't that the relevant point, then?

PC B's Bane spell affects the enemies of PC B.

NPC A is not the enemy of PC B.

Looks pretty unambiguous.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Isn't that the relevant point, then?

PC B's Bane spell affects the enemies of PC B.

NPC A is not the enemy of PC B.

Looks pretty unambiguous.

Well, if you go with NPC A is not PC B's enemy because he does not wish to be. Not if you go with anybody PC B hates is his enemy.

However, Bane is the ONLY core rule spell like that. All of the rest of the core rule enemy spells talk about foes and opponents. This implies that a literal ruling is invalid in this case.

Hence, it can hardly be used as an example for AoO Cleave.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This implies that a literal ruling is invalid in this case.

... how?

-Hyp.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

So dropping summoned creatures for an AoO advantage is acceptable because there are no consequences?