Cleaving after an AoO

[KarinsDad]

After reading through all the posts and as a player who actually likes to play fighters i must say why pick on the fughter. Cleave is normally only taken by a fighter due to most other classes having better feats to take. So why nurf the fighter by disallowing his feat to work. At higher levels this feats normaaly becomes usless so let us fighters have our fun at low levels before we nearly become a mobile shield and hit point sink.

Do you REALLY consider this a significant nerf, even at low level?

 

[Joker]

This has been a very comical thread sofar. Personally I would let the AoO+Cleave work. It comes up so little that it really doesn't destroy a game.

What about someone with improved trip and cleave who gets an AoO? He trips Enemy 1, gets an attack, kills Enemy 1, cleaves through to the next.

Just posting out loud.

 

[Storm Raven]

The problem with your examples are that they are nonsensical for the following reason: All of your examples could be replaced with a non-existent character, the same moves could be made, and then Fighters could get AoOs against imaginary foes at any time, just to get the real follow up Cleave against the real foe.

Here's your real problem: you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. If you stop trying to make up silly examples, then the feat combinations make more sense.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

And the DM can politely reply that by your actions, you have diverged to an evil alignment, by attacking the summoned creatures of your allies. Enjoy your new alignment and the attendant headaches, especially when the good cleric's healing spells fizzle when he tries to cast them on you as a result of divine intervention.

 

[Thanee]

This has been a very comical thread sofar. Personally I would let the AoO+Cleave work. It comes up so little that it really doesn't destroy a game.

I don't think, that many people here consider it "destroying the game", but rather something, which - even though it certainly does not come up often - just doesn't feel right. This has nothing to do with being overpowered, disruptive or anything. It's just "unfair".

What about someone with improved trip and cleave who gets an AoO? He trips Enemy 1, gets an attack, kills Enemy 1, cleaves through to the next.

No problem up to the point where Cleave enters the Stage. Enemy 1 provoked an AoO, so that's what he gets. Enemy 2 (the next), however, has not provoked an AoO, so cannot be attacked outside of that someones turn.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's your real problem: you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. If you stop trying to make up silly examples, then the feat combinations make more sense.

Of course you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. That was not the point of that, but I guess you didn't understand that if you thought that was the point of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this reply.

If do not understand the point of it, you really shouldn't talk about it. It makes what you write sound kind of silly.

 

[Storm Raven]

Of course you cannot take AoOs against a non-existent character. That was not the point of that, but I guess you didn't understand that if you thought that was the point of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted this reply.

No, I understood the point of it, but your point doesn't make sense. You invented a problem: if you could take AoOs against someone not there, you could gain extra attacks using Cleave, and tried to use that to analogize inm an effort to show the "silliness" of the idea of taking an AoO against a real opponent to gain extra attacks using Cleave.

It is an entirely contrived example, and one that is patently silly. It attempts to circumvent the rules of the game to "illustrate" that the rules of the game look silly. And it didn't work. It just looks like you made a silly argument. Inventing a nonsensical (and impossible) option doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes your argument look empty.

 

[KarinsDad]

And the DM can politely reply that by your actions, you have diverged to an evil alignment, by attacking the summoned creatures of your allies. Enjoy your new alignment and the attendant headaches, especially when the good cleric's healing spells fizzle when he tries to cast them on you as a result of divine intervention.

I would tell such a DM to go take a hike and easily convince my fellow intelligent gamers that we need a new DM.

The entire point of Summoning spells is to put the summoned creatures into harms way in order to assist the party.

If that requires wiping out the summoned creatures with Combat Reflexes AoO Cleave in order to get more powerful attacks against the foe, or having the summoned creatures attack the foe directly, or having the summoned creatures walk over a bridge in order to set off any traps (or to set off a trap we know about), that's what it means.

A DM who didn't understand this and tried to play the alignment card when we are talking about summoned creatures doesn't deserve to be DM and would get replaced in our group.

What drivel!

DMs can do what they want, but even they are sanctioned by the group. That does not mean that the players always (or even often) get their way, but it does mean that a DM had better put such strange summon creature restrictions up front in his house rules, or he won't stay DM for long.

Next you'll be saying that the ectoplasmic constructs from Astral Construct will result in alignment changes if they are abused as well.

 

[Thanee]

All psionics should have the [EVIL] tag, anyways...

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

No, I understood the point of it, but your point doesn't make sense. You invented a problem: if you could take AoOs against someone not there, you could gain extra attacks using Cleave, and tried to use that to analogize inm an effort to show the "silliness" of the idea of taking an AoO against a real opponent to gain extra attacks using Cleave.

It is an entirely contrived example, and one that is patently silly. It attempts to circumvent the rules of the game to "illustrate" that the rules of the game look silly. And it didn't work. It just looks like you made a silly argument. Inventing a nonsensical (and impossible) option doesn't make your argument stronger, it makes your argument look empty.

No, you did not understand the point from your response here.

The point was that in "real combat", a combat sequence that could be done with a "cleave manuever through an opponent" should also be possible without an opponent standing there. You should be able to make the exact same set of combat moves, regardless of whether someone is standing there or not to "cleave through".

Since that attack is not possible with a cleave maneuver if nobody is there, it shouldn't be possible with a cleave maneuver if somebody is there, specifically in the AoO case where an attack on the primary character is possible or not dependent on the actions of a secondary character.

In simpler terms, if an asteroid is heading towards the Earth, you can fire a missile at it. If an asteroid is not heading towards the Earth, in real life, you could still fire a missile at that same location. In the game, if the asteroid is not there, you cannot fire the missile (i.e. if you do not get an AoO, you cannot get the Cleave from it).

The game rules prevent you from getting Cleave attacks without a trigger, they should prevent it with a trigger (because the trigger should not change the circumstances of combat).

I hope this made it clearer for you, but I suspect not.