Cleaving after an AoO

[Storm Raven]

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

So, you think it is perfectly okay to summon a creature for the express purpose of killing it? I'm left to wonder where your code of morality finds its roots, and to marvel at the depravity that must exist at its core.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Who says the game has to be cinematic?

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

It doesn't, and it isn't.

However, you are basing your opposition to "Cleaving on an AoO" on a particular, non-rule-based, cinematic (as in, "flavor text the DM says when my character does something") reading of the feat. You then claim that, because this particular point of view leads to undesirable results, the combination itself is undesirable.

Therefore, the problem is not necessarily with the rules itself, but rather with the cinematic reading you have added to the rules.

In other words:

1. A + B = Allowed by RAW
2. A + B + C = Stupid

Therefore, A + B = Stupid

where A is Cleave, B is AoO, and C is your particular cinematic formulation.

It's pretty easy to see, however, that this sort of logic doesn't really hold water.

Get rid of C, because it's C that's causing you problems, not A or B.

I don't expect a position switch at this late date, however.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

In other words, your DMs seem to have ruled that "whatever is convenient for the players is not evil". Which seems to be the only ruling you will accept on an alignment issue.

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.

Other than the fact that you have summoned a creature for the express purpose of killing it. The ends don't justify the means is a basic tenet of a good alignment. Summoning a celestial creature is not evil, intentionally killing a celestial creature is. Summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act, summoning it just to kill it further compounds the evil nature of the act. In other words, summoning a creature, for the express purpose of killing it, is always an evil act, no matter what the eventual consequences to the creature are.

Turn it around: suppose someone from another plane summoned you, simply to kill you. Would that be okay just because you would reform a day later? Or would the pain and suffering caused you while you were being hacked apart be wrong?

Further, would you expect a benevolent deity to be perfectly okay with such a use for his celestial charges?

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).

Except that they clearly can be hurt by the rules as written: during the process when they are killed you are hurting them, intentionally, for your own convenience. I'm not sure if you can come up with a more clear definition of "evil" than intentionally inflicting pain upon creatures solely for your own convenience.

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

I am left to wonder at the depraved system of morality used in your games where intentionally summoning creatures solely for the purpose of inflicting pain and death (even if that death is temporary) upon them is considered to be AOK.

 

[Philip]

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

Well, since the thread is still running, and this is surely a challenge.

How about the wizard using an illusion instead of summoning an actual creature? Make the illusion one that looks like your opponents and yell at your (stupid) fighter. Watch out Bob, more of them coming up from behind!

Then make your illusion draw an AoO, react by letting it drop and thus creating a Cleave!

There you have it, you own actual non-existant creature, and since its not actually alive, you have no more problems with alignments, killing summoned creatures etc. Besides the illusion does not think and therefore does not have enemies or friends, but your allies think of them as enemies, and your enemies will think of them as allies. At least it should make the enemy vs. friends vs. neutral charts a lot easier to read. Hopefully.

Alternately, just create an illusion of a clown who keeps on tripping and standing up next to the fighter, and let him enjoy al that AoO and Cleaving goodness, while you have a laught at the nice cinematic effect it produces.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

That's an interesting idea Philip... certainly much more feasible to me than summoning in astral/celestial creatures to be put to slaughter. At least there won't be any deities pissed off in the process of destroying an illusion. I wonder if that would work? The clown idea would have to be cast over & over though, as soon as the fighter chops it down it's done.

 

[KarinsDad]

Other than the fact that you have summoned a creature for the express purpose of killing it. The ends don't justify the means is a basic tenet of a good alignment. Summoning a celestial creature is not evil, intentionally killing a celestial creature is. Summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act, summoning it just to kill it further compounds the evil nature of the act. In other words, summoning a creature, for the express purpose of killing it, is always an evil act, no matter what the eventual consequences to the creature are.

Turn it around: suppose someone from another plane summoned you, simply to kill you. Would that be okay just because you would reform a day later? Or would the pain and suffering caused you while you were being hacked apart be wrong?

Further, would you expect a benevolent deity to be perfectly okay with such a use for his celestial charges?

You just don't get it, do you?

WotC PURPOSELY made Summon Monster spells extraplanar to avoid the very morality issue that you are making.

It CAN be immoral to do this in a game based on campaign, but they designed the spell so that it doesn't have to be. That is the default.


Also, you are arguing game morality over summoned creatures in a game where a party of characters wipe out a tribe of Orcs and then steal their stuff.

Are you saying that the good PCs in YOUR campaigns never did this type of thing?

Are you saying that every time they did, YOUR DM hit them with an alignment violation?

This is called MURDER and THEFT.

Are you saying that the characters that you have played have never killed a neutral creature and have never taken its stuff?

Cut the rest of us a break.

Get off your high moral horse because you sound silly on it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That might work, Phillip, but only if the illusion is partially real. Otherwise, you're back to swinging at imaginary foes again.

Also, most illusions don't allow for that powerful a degree of interaction, so you'd likely need a custom-researched spell.

 

[Vlos]

Ok, Philip hit a point.

Ok, now take a fighter with Cleave, Improved Cleave, Combat Reflexes. All SRD feats. (assuming high dex for CR +4)

Now summon 4 illusioned minions. Have then charge and attack (using bare hands) the fighter who is standing next to the big bad guy.

Ok all charge at same time. # = illusion, P1 = Player, BBEG = Bigbadevilguy
#1 Charge, P1 AoO, #1 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG),
#2 Charge, P1 AoO, #2 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG),
#3 Charge, P1 AoO, #3 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG),
#4 Charge, P1 AoO, #4 die, P1 Cleave (BBEG),

And even if they don't charge, attacking unarmed would also provoke AoO.

Or take an illusion of a swarm of evil kobolds (unarmed) that charge out and attack the fighter around the guy, how many small creatures can surround a medium, with a BBEG taking up one side? Illusion is very believeable because a high level fighter can easily kill kobolds in a single strike.


For the Gms that have players who argue for this, have a large/huge creature use the same tactic. How many kobolds can surround a dragon? With its reach included...

 

[Storm Raven]

Ok, Philip hit a point.

Ok, now take a fighter with Cleave, Improved Cleave, Combat Reflexes. All SRD feats. (assuming high dex for CR +4)

Now summon 4 illusioned minions. Have then charge and attack (using bare hands) the fighter who is standing next to the big bad guy.

Which would be interesting if destroying an illusion triggered the Cleave feat. The "official" ruling (for what its worth) is that it doesn't.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Personally I would say that if the fighter failed his will save (yeah, I know, hard to do LOL) and believed in the illusion, then I don't see why he wouldn't get his cleave.