Cleaving after an AoO

[Storm Raven]

Elric - Moonglum lets Elric kill him to rejuvenate/restore/power up Elric.

Are you arguing that Elric is an example of a good aligned character?

 

[Abraxas]

Are you arguing that Elric is an example of a good aligned character?

Nope. Was referring to Storyteller01's question about characters attacking allies to gain an advantage.

The Elric example has nothing to do with your morality arguments - As far as the game I play in goes you are wrong. Doubly so if you aren't enforcing the unnecessary pain and suffering argument on uses of the spell such as setting off traps or using them to provide flanking when they can't actually injure the opponent. Even more so when your neutral PC summoner can summon fiendish critters who are evil. But you have fun playing your way and I'll have fun playing my way, cause we will never have to game together

I think the spell says something about summoned creatures automatically attacking your enemies, so they know who the "good guys" are, therefore they won't attack friendly PCs even if ordered to do so

The spells say they automatically attack your enemies unless you can communicate with them, then you can command them to do other things - so you can have them attack your allies.

 

[atom crash]

I do feel that allowing AoO+Cleave is a game balance issue, as well as a fairness issue. If I make a tactical decision and risk an extra attack (attack of opportunity) in order to perfrom some action that will benefit me, I don't expect that risk taken on my part to transfer to someone else as well.

When I play chess and sacrifice a pawn to set up some tactical play, I don't expect my opponent to take an additional pawn as well.

An attack of opportunity, as put forth in the rules, is a special situation outside of the parameters of normal combat. It is, in effect, giving your opponent an extra attack in order to gain a benefit. To allow that opponent to Cleave after the AoO is in effect to give him an additional attack on someone who didn't pay the price (AoO), who didn't take the risk.

The game balance issue is that this fighter has received an extra attack outside of his normal turn.

If this combination was ever used against my character in a game, I'd be highly upset. I'd feel as if the player-DM contract had been breached by allowing an additional attack on me when I did nothing to place myself at risk.

The best mitigating factor is that this is not going to happen very often. In my campaign, the only character who has Cleave has only actually used it twice. Ever. And the PCs are more likely than the NPCs to draw attacks of opportunity. But I do often use the AoO as a tactical maneuver, weighing risk against reward (they probably won't hit my AC), in order to set up battlefield advantages.

By the way, I am likey to ignore any response that includes the word "cinematic." That word has now been so overused (and misused) that it means absolutely nothing. It's a description added as a marketing tool to sell me a concept or product.

 

[azmodean]

The spells say they automatically attack your enemies unless you can communicate with them, then you can command them to do other things - so you can have them attack your allies.

Ah, in that case I guess you could command a summoned creature to attack an ally, in which case the summoned creature isn't going to provoke any attacks of opportunity from them

Sure they could order the creature to attack an ally, but also to sacrifice themselves to it, but the complexity of the command has now far exceeded the bounds of a free action. In fact, I'd probably kick into wish-interpretation mode, in which case the caster would need to spend most of the spell duration explaining what they want the summoned creature to do exactly. Make a diplomacy check to get the creature to understand what you're asking for...

In other words, I'm not going to make doing this impossible, but I'm not going to make such an unconventional tactic easy to perform either.

 

[Scion]

I don't expect that risk taken on my part to transfer to someone else as well

I am afraid that this is completely unimportant. Sometimes actions that someone else takes will effect you negatively. Especially if someone else has the ability to take advantage of special cituations.

That is what their training does.

It not being fair sounds like the same person who would complain about getting hit by the fireball when he was invis, or someone stepping on a trap which hits him as well, or someone easedropping on your conversation and hearing whatever secret plan is being discussed.

In the last case it is someone elses skill being able to do something special in a cituation that developed that they are trained to handle. Same with cleave in this case.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am afraid that this is completely unimportant. Sometimes actions that someone else takes will effect you negatively. Especially if someone else has the ability to take advantage of special cituations.

You are quite correct from a realism POV.

However the D&D designers have very purposefully avoided making the game realistic in the manner of which you speak. For example, the tactical modifiers for being in a hostile crowd are virtually non-existent. +2 for flanking -- that is all.

AoO+Cleave is a stylistic break from the rest of the D&D mechanics. That is a subjective argument, but one which I believe has a lot to support it.

 

[Scion]

the D&D designers have very purposefully avoided making the game realistic in the manner of which you speak.

Since all of the examples I gave are things that happen in game then I dont think you have a leg to stand on here

 

[Lamoni]

Wow, still going.

I'd just like to add one more thing that I thought of as I was reading through the last few pages.

There has been arguments about cleaving off of invisible or imaginary opponents. In a game that didn't allow Cleave off of an AoO, I would let the fighter with great cleave slay as many imaginary opponents as he wanted. Each time he slayed an imaginary opponent, great cleave would let him get another attack at the same bonus.

I like this. I like to imagine cleave as "if you drop a creature, you get to act as if that attack didn't happen (with regards to the actions you can make, the creature is still dead or dying)"

Obviously, that is not how the feat was written. If it was written this way it would also allow the fighter to attack, move, attack and therefore also be useful in campaigns with smaller groups of enemies that aren't all grouped together. So, it appears I am not advocating the change to nerf Cleave since my change would make it stronger, not weaker. Anyway I wish it was written that way, but I am happy to play the game according to however the DM wants to with regard to this issue.

Happy gaming everyone!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Since all of the examples I gave are things that happen in game then I dont think you have a leg to stand on here

Sorry, but you are going to have to be more specific. I already cited one example, the paltry situational mods for fighting in a hostile crowd. Did you miss that part?

 

[Storm Raven]

Doubly so if you aren't enforcing the unnecessary pain and suffering argument on uses of the spell such as setting off traps or using them to provide flanking when they can't actually injure the opponent.

Using summoned creatures to set off traps - an evil act.
Using summoned creatures as part of a battle in which they might get killed - not necessarily an evil act.

Even more so when your neutral PC summoner can summon fiendish critters who are evil.

Which is in and of itself an inherently evil act, so I don't think you are gaining much ground here. If your ostensibly neutral caster routinely summons fiendish creatures, he's going to see an alignment shift (as alignment follows actions).