Cleaving after an AoO

[Jarrod]

Here's the rationale we came up with: (BTW, we allow AoO/cleave).

Cleave is the result of an enemy (Alice) letting their guard down because they assume you are tied up with a different enemy (Bob). However, with Cleave, you can destroy Bob faster than Alice can get prepared; effectively, you get a free attack because Alice had her guard down.

It's a perception, enemy/ally thing, but from the point of view of the _cleavee_. Two situations:

Two orcs: cleave attack, since the orcs considered themselves allies.
Bag 'o puppies and an orc: no cleave attack, since the orc did not consider the bag 'o puppies an ally.

This has some interesting side-effects on a three person combat; if you are a target for a Cleave only if an ally is killed, what about if a (non-ally of Cleave-ee, enemy of Cleave-r) gets dropped?

 

[Storm Raven]

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

I suspect you would lose that argument, since it is based on a specious premise.

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

But there is a difference between summoning allies to aid you, and summoning allies with the express purpose of killing them yourself. In that one is evil and the other is not. Just as, for example, a general sending his soliders into harm's way and, as a side effect some of them getting killed is not evil, but his taking a handgun and shooting them in the head would be.

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.

Or, he is simply someone who understands the difference between "evil" and "not-evil", and that sometimes avoiding evil acts means that you cannot simply do things that are convenient.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

No, I understood it, your problem with my response appears to be that I reject it as a viable argument of any kind, as it is based upon a patently silly premise.

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".

And we aren't talking about "real combat", which makes your attempts to analogize to it even sillier. The ideas that you can show a game mnechanic is broken by inventing actions outsied of the scope of the game rules and "prove" that a rule is silly, because you could break that rule if you invented a new one is, quite simply, an empty argument.

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.

But the question is why not? If you accept the existence of the Cleave maneuver to begin with, then why should this special maneuver and training not applicable in that situation, even when it is not applicable when you fake an attack against an imaginary opponent?

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

Your examples are entirely nonsensical. As is your argument.

 

[KarinsDad]

I suspect you would lose that argument, since it is based on a specious premise.

Doubtful. It wouldn't be the first time that we ran a DM out on a rail for being a moron.

However, it is rare because most of our DMs tend to be fairly intelligent and understand the reason for Summon spells in a game.

But there is a difference between summoning allies to aid you, and summoning allies with the express purpose of killing them yourself. In that one is evil and the other is not. Just as, for example, a general sending his soliders into harm's way and, as a side effect some of them getting killed is not evil, but his taking a handgun and shooting them in the head would be.

Summon Monster creatures are extraplanar. If they are "killed", they are not harmed, they merely go back to their plane of existance. No evil in killing them.

Arcane Construct creatures are not living in the traditional sense. If they are killed, they merely evaporate back into the ectoplasm from which they were crafted. No evil in killing them.

The only core spells that acquire allies that could possibly be used for evil are the Summon Nature's Ally and Giant Vermin type spells.

However, since the discussion so far has been about the Summon Monster spell, your alignment argument is invalid.

Now, if the extraplanar creatures in your campaign can be actually hurt or killed, you are basically going outside the reason WotC made the creatures from Summon Monster extraplanar in the first place (i.e. to get beyond the alignment/evil issue).

Or, he is simply someone who understands the difference between "evil" and "not-evil", and that sometimes avoiding evil acts means that you cannot simply do things that are convenient.

No, you are someone who does not understand the difference between evil acts and non-evil ones.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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".

Only if you subscribe to a particularly limited cinematic view of what "Cleave" means.

You perpetually insist, in your examples, that Cleave means "I hit you so hard my sword goes all the way through you and into him."

If such is the case, why can't I take an AoO against an imaginary opponent who is running away, have my sword go through him (which would be pretty easy, considering that he isn't there!), and into you?

Obviously, this doesn't make sense.

The problem, however, is not with the rules, but rather with your very, very, obscenely limited cinematic view of Cleave. In other words, you have a problem with the mechanics of Cleave based on your own non-mechanical explanation of the feat (after all, the rules text of the feat does not specify that you must hack through someone to attack someone else).

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.

In other words, you read the feat as:

If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you are able to continue the same swing that killed it, and so you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.

Now, replace the flavor text you have added (bolded, hack through someone into someone else)with the following flavor text (equally as valid, given the above rules):

You are particularly adept at seizing momentum changes and controlling your battlespace when in combat with more than one potential enemy. If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you are able to make effective use of the opportunity thus provided. You get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach.

There. Now you don't have the swinging at imaginary creatures problem.

Moreover, the DM has greater flexibility in describing the cinematic results of the Cleave - whether it's on an AoO or not. In your case, every Cleave is a mighty single swing that cuts off Bobby's head and ends up in Steve.

In my case, that's *one* possible interpretation, but it need not be the only one. Joe the Cleaver grabs Bobby's shoulder with his left hand and runs him through with his rapier; Bobby drops his blade from nerveless fingers and, as his life fades, feels himself being tossed sideways, interfering with Steve's blade. Joe seizes the opening thus provided and manages to draw a red line along Steve's arm.

Alternatively: Jak fumbles in his pouch for the healing draught he knows is in there - somewhere. Unfortunately for him, that moment's distraction is all Hrogar needs, and the dwarf's axe shears through Jak's buckler and the arm beneath it. Jak screams in pain, blood spraying from the grisly wound and covering the face of Derik, partially blinding him. Derik quickly shifts his grip and wipes the blood from his eyes, but in that instant, Hrogar is on him, and the first and last thing he sees through his newly-cleared eyes is a descending axe blade.

Cleave and Cleave on AoO.

Allowed in RAW, and Allowed Cinematically, as well.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem, however, is not with the rules, but rather with your very, very, obscenely limited cinematic view of Cleave.

Who says the game has to be cinematic?

Why is it WRONG to have a game that is less cinematic and more plausible?


Also, nobody has yet illustrated that AoO Cleave is necessarily cinematic whereas not having it is not? The cinematic aspect of it is moot. AoO Cleave is just a game mechanic which is allowed, or not allowed.

The cinematic aspect of it is merely a rationale for wanting it or not.

Just like the unfairness aspect of it is merely a rationale for wanting it or not.


But, the only balance reason for having it or not having so far is the one of allowing the Summoned Monster AoO Cleave tactic. If you find this tactic unbalancing, you can limit it by not allowing it (which is more subjective because it allows AoO Cleave at some times and not at other times), or you can limit the tactic by not allowing additional attacks with an AoO (which is more objective and consistent).

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Nicely put Patryn.... thank the gods this argument is over. LOL Yeah right, I'm sure someone else has some nonexistent-combatant argument simmering... or the "It's not fair, it's not fair" crowd will jump back in hehehe

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I suspect you would lose that argument, since it is based on a specious premise.

DMs who are so quick to wield the Anarchic Sledgehammer of Arbitrariness are not ones to judge whether an argument is specious.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

It is a fair point, but my personal experience is disallowing AoO + Cleave would help the fighter by not getting him killed in odd desperate situations. I have seen this come up a couple times, in actual play. That my be a peculiarity of my gaming group.

Your mileage is likely to vary if you have a Reach + Combat Reflexes build.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Agreed, Lasher. Getting bent out of shape when a PC is rude to a summoned creature seems a little over the top. Who cares about fairness to a summoned creature?

I think Patryn's argument is fine and logical. But there seem to be a number in the AoO + Cleave camp who would disagree.